Adam Smith got so much right that in order for new economists to say anything new, they have to knowingly and wilfully say something they know not to be true.
Both were acts of terrorism committed by fringe lunatic outsiders, and both were immediately and skilfully exploited by politicians who had the goal all along of subverting the rule of law.
The less is that a person with enough money and influence can force everyone to accept something obviously false, like Han shooting first or dollars having more rights than citizens.
I suspect this is a lot to do with the definition of task. When I switch to FTP or e-mail at work, it's because that's part of the job I'm doing, not to do something wholly unrelated.
In a classic Unix system, a 'task' might mean three or four programs piped together for each command.
I think advertising needs to be more 'active' than that to truly qualify as immoral, but there's so much grey area that banning it outright would be much easier.
Slashdot Mirror
Whereas the USA PATRIOT Act had, what, one dissenting vote? (Or maybe I'm thinking of the authorization of the use of military force?)
if what the FBI is claiming is true
It's not. They stopped bothering to pretend.
It would take longer than the lifespan of a monkey too.
It's an idealization.
Whereas in the 19th century China had drug laws to protect.... the Chinese.
I'm confused now...
Monkey keystrokes and infinite time does produce the works of Shakespeare.
So let's show monkeys a little more respect than comparing them members of Congress.
Adam Smith got so much right that in order for new economists to say anything new, they have to knowingly and wilfully say something they know not to be true.
Obviously No True Scots' constitution would have evolved that way.
Both were acts of terrorism committed by fringe lunatic outsiders, and both were immediately and skilfully exploited by politicians who had the goal all along of subverting the rule of law.
The less is that a person with enough money and influence can force everyone to accept something obviously false, like Han shooting first or dollars having more rights than citizens.
why communists always seem to get a free pass on the tyranny train?
They were ever so slightly less bad than the Nazis.
Well, maybe, we're not really all that sure. But they won the Second World War for us so we give them the benefit of the doubt.
The problem with 'economics' is that the word is used to identify two mutually-exclusive concepts:
The scientific investigation into human responses to scarcity, and
Mathematical techno-babble designed to disguise the wishful thinking of politicians and the wealthy who own politicians.
By random chance, the two are occasionally the same thing.
It's the limit of what's observable.
It's like how a light beam can have an edge, but it doesn't mean there isn't anything in the shadow.
So, better than the alternatives? Or worse?
The greatest document ever created was obviously Magna Carta.
The alternative is not voting at all, which doesn't help either.
I suspect this is a lot to do with the definition of task. When I switch to FTP or e-mail at work, it's because that's part of the job I'm doing, not to do something wholly unrelated.
In a classic Unix system, a 'task' might mean three or four programs piped together for each command.
I doubt if any other police force would hire them after this.
Not for what they did, of course, but because they got caught.
Because they have ultimate responsibility.
You mean you had to do what you did with every other piece of software on your computer?
We don't need to test the politicians, we need to test their money.
And once the money is laundered (in both senses of the word) you won't know.
We know Clinton is bad. Telling us that does not give us new information.
What we want to know is whether she is better or worse than the alternatives.
Your knowledge of the English/Scottish/British constitution is about 400 years out of date.
Men's rights are alive and well.
Men's rights are alive and making progress. Slowly.
Not at all the same thing.
How about they can advertise all they want as long as they can guarantee that the adverts are completely safe for my computer?
Of course, the technology for such a guarantee is probably decades away (if it exists at all), so that would be a big leap forward.
I think advertising needs to be more 'active' than that to truly qualify as immoral, but there's so much grey area that banning it outright would be much easier.
You know, if an Arab state is moving from Mediaeval barbarism to Enlightenment, maybe it would be a good time to say something positive.