It's more like "this is how we're going to handle this. What are you going to do about it? Oh, and how are you going to get re-elected with us funding the schnauzer running against you?"
We tried that. Turns out the other ways didn't change anything, and pissed off the merchant classes. So now we're voting, and letting them tell us who to vote for.
Big government was going to leave it as one pipe, wide open.
Big corporate is going to do exactly what they just told you they won't do: create two pipes, one for them, and one for you. The one for them will be capable of serving on-demand HDTV in 240-Hz 3D 1080p. The one for you will be this one, forever, and in a couple of years your cell-phone video camera will be recording more bandwidth than your "open" internet upload can handle.
Seems like the right thing to do would have been to make them indestructible and non-transferrable except by explicit assent.
Instead the devs realized that every one destroyed is an account payable they'll never have to pay. I.e., it's the devs, not the attackers, who took the money from this guy.
Imagine the number of clicks this has generated net-wide on various pages created to attract clicks and think of how many of those are hooked into Google's massive adware fabric.
It could be someone at Google's job to figure everything out.
It's not illegal to publish a book. It's illegal to be a corporation campaigning for a candidate by hiding behind a book and the first amendment.
Money is not speech, and corporate money less so. The disconnect between the individuals in the company and the decisions the executives make renders it undemocratic to allow companies to act as individuals.
If you don't think corporations are dominating political discourse or election, then I recommend you just keep watching Fox News, because I can't help you.
I'm not sure Oliver Wendell Holmes ever punched anyone in an unrightful manner. If you don't understand metaphor, then I surely can't help you.
Before HP started making printers to sell ink for 500X its value, it had great electronics products, and middling if earnest PC products.
Fiorina and the printer scam turned the company's values on its head. She expanded that profit-at-all-costs mentality to her push to outsource all of America's technology production. She doesn't understand the point of a good economy is to give us all a chance live decently, not just pile up cash as fast as possible in her hands. Or maybe she does, and doesn't care that her way got about 5% of the total economic return and gave it to 0.5% of the people.
Pretty much this. And just because everything is somewhat political, it doesn't mean every venture is as bad as every other
True that. I'm pretty sure Thomas Jefferson knew what politics was when he made it the basis of our political system...on purpose...as though it was going to solve problems we used to and no longer have.
Like women and unlike wine, all man's endeavours grow more wrought with bitterness over time.
Depends on your time scale and your skill in choosing either one.
And the government is made of people, and governs people.
It's not a circular fallacy, it's a self-organizing system.
And what's wrong here isn't wrong because I think it's wrong, it's wrong because it's wrong. I'm right because I think it's wrong, and the government is right because it prosecutes those who do it. And you're wrong because you think wrong is right.
Lastly, I wasn't talking about all civilian casualties in that statement. These releases are due to an expansion of the self-justification wikileaks made for the release of the helicopter-attack video. Since then it's decided that it has the right to risk the lives of thousands of people to make a political point, rather than dealing with it in a legal manner, when right there in the law it says that it's illegal to punish people for dealing with it in a legal manner.
The kid who leaked the material is in jail. Assange should be in the next cell, listening to him cry.
Trusting tax collection to a device owned and operated, maintained and presented by the person paying tax is just another recipe for tax evasion.
Our entire tax collection system is "voluntary" in the sense that the taxpayer is the one responsible for accurately reporting their data.
For corporate-paid income, there's another system for reporting it, but that's for the benefit of the corporation, who are legally allowed to deduct employee salaries. Banks do the same, for the same reason. The IRS doesn't have a means of extracting information about your cashflows unless it's something the entity collecting it has to do to report their own taxes.
And it's only one number on your form. So the revenoors rely on your integrity for about 99% of the information it has on you.
No, it didn't. It wasn't about what the government could do with the info, it was about what it could legally do with the info.
And I don't mind law enforcement knocking on the door of people who atypically amass explosive components. Those are the people they should be asking questions. And the more times it's unnecessary the better.
I would mind a lot if they knocked-IN my door for that. But to do that they need a warrant. Which moots all of these arguments, since with a warrant they can tap your phones, bug your car, install cameras in your bathroom, etc., etc. And to get a warrant they need a little more than a couple of receipts; they need to show probable cause, and just possessing those things isn't probable cause.
Slashdot Mirror
Er, no.
It's more like "this is how we're going to handle this. What are you going to do about it? Oh, and how are you going to get re-elected with us funding the schnauzer running against you?"
We tried that. Turns out the other ways didn't change anything, and pissed off the merchant classes. So now we're voting, and letting them tell us who to vote for.
Wrong again.
Big government was going to leave it as one pipe, wide open.
Big corporate is going to do exactly what they just told you they won't do: create two pipes, one for them, and one for you. The one for them will be capable of serving on-demand HDTV in 240-Hz 3D 1080p. The one for you will be this one, forever, and in a couple of years your cell-phone video camera will be recording more bandwidth than your "open" internet upload can handle.
TV has the potential to inform.
It also has the potential to entertain.
Guess which costs money, and which makes money.
All hail Global Warming!
Seems like the right thing to do would have been to make them indestructible and non-transferrable except by explicit assent.
Instead the devs realized that every one destroyed is an account payable they'll never have to pay. I.e., it's the devs, not the attackers, who took the money from this guy.
You'd think in the fantasy future someone would have invented the credit card and the bank account.
Here's an idea:
Stop accepting what they offer, and demand more.
Translation: because a sweatshop is better than living in a ditch, it's okay to run sweatshops.
There's your moral relativist anti-humanist rant in a nutshell.
Clue to right-wing suckers: money is not life.
If reports are correct, millions of people are working second jobs tediously tending inedible crops for zero pay.
http://www.farmville.com/
I wonder what the minimum-wage law has to say about that.
Imagine the number of clicks this has generated net-wide on various pages created to attract clicks and think of how many of those are hooked into Google's massive adware fabric.
It could be someone at Google's job to figure everything out.
>It's all relative - what do you consider 1 move? I came across this argument during my first DnD session, and subsequently, haven't played it since.
For you, 1 move is looking in the book.
For me, 1 move is repeatedly bashing you with the flat of my 1d8 halberd until you are a glittering pink sheen on the mossy schist.
Your move.
RTFM
$ man -k fonz
fonz (1) - intimidate nerds, remove bras with one motion, raise thumbs, and jump sharks
How many moves does it take to solve Farmville?
Though I'm not sure that answer matters much to its developers either.
You're paying way too much for your toilet paper. You must be a Libertarian.
It's not illegal to publish a book. It's illegal to be a corporation campaigning for a candidate by hiding behind a book and the first amendment.
Money is not speech, and corporate money less so. The disconnect between the individuals in the company and the decisions the executives make renders it undemocratic to allow companies to act as individuals.
If you don't think corporations are dominating political discourse or election, then I recommend you just keep watching Fox News, because I can't help you.
I'm not sure Oliver Wendell Holmes ever punched anyone in an unrightful manner. If you don't understand metaphor, then I surely can't help you.
Before HP started making printers to sell ink for 500X its value, it had great electronics products, and middling if earnest PC products.
Fiorina and the printer scam turned the company's values on its head. She expanded that profit-at-all-costs mentality to her push to outsource all of America's technology production. She doesn't understand the point of a good economy is to give us all a chance live decently, not just pile up cash as fast as possible in her hands. Or maybe she does, and doesn't care that her way got about 5% of the total economic return and gave it to 0.5% of the people.
Pretty much this. And just because everything is somewhat political, it doesn't mean every venture is as bad as every other
True that. I'm pretty sure Thomas Jefferson knew what politics was when he made it the basis of our political system...on purpose...as though it was going to solve problems we used to and no longer have.
Like women and unlike wine, all man's endeavours grow more wrought with bitterness over time.
Depends on your time scale and your skill in choosing either one.
What you mean "we", partisan?
(I love it when my point proves itself...)
And the government is made of people, and governs people.
It's not a circular fallacy, it's a self-organizing system.
And what's wrong here isn't wrong because I think it's wrong, it's wrong because it's wrong. I'm right because I think it's wrong, and the government is right because it prosecutes those who do it. And you're wrong because you think wrong is right.
Lastly, I wasn't talking about all civilian casualties in that statement. These releases are due to an expansion of the self-justification wikileaks made for the release of the helicopter-attack video. Since then it's decided that it has the right to risk the lives of thousands of people to make a political point, rather than dealing with it in a legal manner, when right there in the law it says that it's illegal to punish people for dealing with it in a legal manner.
The kid who leaked the material is in jail. Assange should be in the next cell, listening to him cry.
I don't get why anyone is surprised that doing things with people turns political.
Just when did I piss on your shoes?
And can I do it again some time?
Trusting tax collection to a device owned and operated, maintained and presented by the person paying tax is just another recipe for tax evasion.
Our entire tax collection system is "voluntary" in the sense that the taxpayer is the one responsible for accurately reporting their data.
For corporate-paid income, there's another system for reporting it, but that's for the benefit of the corporation, who are legally allowed to deduct employee salaries. Banks do the same, for the same reason. The IRS doesn't have a means of extracting information about your cashflows unless it's something the entity collecting it has to do to report their own taxes.
And it's only one number on your form. So the revenoors rely on your integrity for about 99% of the information it has on you.
Adding this won't change that much.
Here's a clue for you:
If the 30-cent tax went away, the price wouldn't drop by 30 cents.
There's a reason gasoline is one of the most heavily taxed commodities yet the oil companies are the most profitable in history.
And there are tax stickers all over the pump. Everyone sees them all the time. The number who bleat about them is way more than "very few".
No, it didn't. It wasn't about what the government could do with the info, it was about what it could legally do with the info.
And I don't mind law enforcement knocking on the door of people who atypically amass explosive components. Those are the people they should be asking questions. And the more times it's unnecessary the better.
I would mind a lot if they knocked-IN my door for that. But to do that they need a warrant. Which moots all of these arguments, since with a warrant they can tap your phones, bug your car, install cameras in your bathroom, etc., etc. And to get a warrant they need a little more than a couple of receipts; they need to show probable cause, and just possessing those things isn't probable cause.