It works like this. You want a bike, you don't have time to research the right price, you just hope the market price is OK:
* Mr B posts "Bicycle wanted, will pay up to $500"
* Mr S posts "Bicycle for sale, $600"
* Special user says "OK, now buying bikes for $520, selling for $580"
* You post "buying 1 bike, best price".
This is pants on head retarded.
If the Special user can just create bikes out of thin air, he should just set up a bike shop and sell them for $500.
In the real world, where is he getting his bikes from? Mr S wont sell his for anything less than $600 and Mr B is buying.
What really happens is that Special user sees you want a bike and are too stupid to name a price, so he quickly buys the $600 bike and realising the next best price is $610, sells it to you for $609.99
If you want to add in more competing special leechers, they all bid/cancel spam each other $609 $608 etc. and you end up paying $600.01 Best case you were only ripped off 1 cent.
Your premise seems to be each and every person has their own reality, where anything they choose to believe is true. Choose between different religions, versions of religions, pick and choose line by line from a holy book which parts you want to believe. Day by day you could change and pick any reality you desired you just have to believe and have faith, it's useless.How would anything ever get done?
Science at least can try to group peoples realities together into a consistent framework, we can choose to live together in a collective reality and do useful things.
Which reality is better?
People claim miracles still happen. People claim they talk with God, have a personal relationship with Jesus. That is happening today.
People can claim anything. I can claim that I am Jesus.
Religion has no evidence to back it's claims, science does.
I get that the world is a scary place and it's easier to believe that something is watching over you and protecting you but that doesn't make it true. It's not the reality we live in.
You do not get to ignore reality in order to impose your own.
You are correct, I don't.
Religious people do though.
Let's see, a person who starts with a clean slate and thinks and questions can come to an understanding about something. (I'll give you the point that that understanding could be wrong.)
But a person who was brought up to believe something on faith just because their parents told them to believe it, or that they read it in a holy book doesn't really understand. Why would they, they never had to think about it, it may as well be a fact to them. They have been told, and they believe.
You're both thinking too small.
If you have access to everyones secrets, you know what deals are being made or about to be made.
Set up a(nother) hedge fund or investment bank or something like that, the money just makes itself.
"He continues to be oblivious about his own failure and the pain he has caused others. He is confirming that he is a self-absorbed narcissist with an inflated sense of self-confidence who has no remorse."
Breaking news....
CEO acts like a CEO
Stay tuned for more updates to this continuing story...
What's to stop you from connecting to it as a "hotspot" to do your torrenting and then back to "normal" for the rest of your traffic?
I'm going to go with common sense.
After the first time you try this and it asks for your login details, and you now know that they can tell exactly who you are and that you aren't hiding in any way. You would probably decide not to bother the next time. (It would probably also be a slower connection anyway.)
'Has had', includes all previous editors of the site, not just the current ones.
I'd hate to see your edits if you don't understand even very simple grammar.
Legality is decided based on due process according to the Constitution. If you believe in the Constitution and claim to defend it, then you believe due process is the best and only way to decide legality in our country
This is not a question of whether Snowden was "right" or "wrong" but whether his actions were Constitutionally legal. I cannot see any reasonable argument that says they were.
Snowden is yet to have his day in court, so by what you have said anything he does is constitutional because it hasn't been proved otherwise. When he has his day in court, that same court can then declare all the other things unconstitutional.
You can't have your cake and eat it too, if it's obvious what Snowden did was counter to the constitution then it's just as obvious (I'd say even more-so) what the NSA did is counter also.
Though I do basically agree with most of what you said.
I'm pretty sure they agree to defend the constitution from ALL enemies, foreign and domestic. I don't think there is an exemption for government officials who have overstepped their power.
Being authorised by the office of the president, or legislation makes no difference if the law is counter to the constitution. Eventually when it comes before a court it will be declared unconstitutional (assuming the judges are not corrupt, but that's a whole other problem) and retroactively will cease to exist.
The legal encyclopedia American Jurisprudence says the following in regard to constitutionality:
The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed... An unconstitutional law is void. (16 Am. Jur. 2d, Sec. 178)
So you think the constitution is intrinsically broken, but you still want to follow all the things that are set up by that constitution. You still place the broken government of the day, above the broken constitution. Either way, shining a light on the whole mess is the best way to start fixing whatever it is that's broken.
I dnavid, hereby declare on oath, that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic (except when I'm just following orders, even if I know those orders are wrong and are counter to the constitution I'm swearing to protect).
If he was working for the Russians all along, he would have simply stayed put and kept stealing secrets. No need to flee anywhere. He also wouldn't give a fuck about the domestic spying aspect, if he wanted to drive a wedge he could have released that part anonymously while giving all the other juicy secrets to the Russians.
Most people nowadays who are 'influenced' by Jesus are pretty much the opposite of what he preached.(So his direct influence can't be really all that strong.) It is Christianity and the Church that has all the influence, not the man. Stop pretending that they are one and the same. Do you actually think that the person Jesus, would approve of all the things that are now being done in his name?
Anyway the person who invented the number system or the wheel are many orders of magnitude more influential that him and we don't even know their names.
PS: The entire point of Christianity is to indoctrinate as many people as it can and have a set of rules to follow so as to create an us vs them mentality, then compete with all the other groups doing the same thing. The Jesus part is just a nice story to get bums on seats.
Maybe English is your 4th or 5th language, since you're obviously so smart, but something can't be 'very unrepresented'. Very doesn't work like that. Maybe you were thinking of very underrepresented, highly under-represented or something similar.
Slashdot Mirror
Just show your 1%er ID card then you're good to go.
Ahh, liberals, forever convinced economics is a zero-sum game.
Ahh market manipulators, forever convinced their market is the same as an economy.
It works like this. You want a bike, you don't have time to research the right price, you just hope the market price is OK: * Mr B posts "Bicycle wanted, will pay up to $500" * Mr S posts "Bicycle for sale, $600" * Special user says "OK, now buying bikes for $520, selling for $580" * You post "buying 1 bike, best price".
This is pants on head retarded.
If the Special user can just create bikes out of thin air, he should just set up a bike shop and sell them for $500.
In the real world, where is he getting his bikes from? Mr S wont sell his for anything less than $600 and Mr B is buying.
What really happens is that Special user sees you want a bike and are too stupid to name a price, so he quickly buys the $600 bike and realising the next best price is $610, sells it to you for $609.99
If you want to add in more competing special leechers, they all bid/cancel spam each other $609 $608 etc. and you end up paying $600.01 Best case you were only ripped off 1 cent.
No upside-down Russia. We like to call it Antarctica.
That allows USA intelligence services to get involved.
Allows really what rock have you been hiding under?
Sorry thought I was logged in.
Your premise seems to be each and every person has their own reality, where anything they choose to believe is true. Choose between different religions, versions of religions, pick and choose line by line from a holy book which parts you want to believe. Day by day you could change and pick any reality you desired you just have to believe and have faith, it's useless.How would anything ever get done?
Science at least can try to group peoples realities together into a consistent framework, we can choose to live together in a collective reality and do useful things.
Which reality is better?
People claim miracles still happen. People claim they talk with God, have a personal relationship with Jesus. That is happening today.
People can claim anything. I can claim that I am Jesus.
Religion has no evidence to back it's claims, science does.
I get that the world is a scary place and it's easier to believe that something is watching over you and protecting you but that doesn't make it true. It's not the reality we live in.
You do not get to ignore reality in order to impose your own.
You are correct, I don't.
Religious people do though.
Let's see, a person who starts with a clean slate and thinks and questions can come to an understanding about something. (I'll give you the point that that understanding could be wrong.)
But a person who was brought up to believe something on faith just because their parents told them to believe it, or that they read it in a holy book doesn't really understand. Why would they, they never had to think about it, it may as well be a fact to them. They have been told, and they believe.
The context is of what people who do belive could understand
People who 'believe' in this context are incapable of understanding. They already have their opinion given to them from their beliefs.
To get (re-)elected.
Unlike America, other countries have a meaningful choice when it comes to who they give their vote to. Politicians know this.
You're both thinking too small.
If you have access to everyones secrets, you know what deals are being made or about to be made.
Set up a(nother) hedge fund or investment bank or something like that, the money just makes itself.
The FCC can stop them from selling any products at all in the US in that case.
Wow it's so simple.
Why didn't the FCC just stop them from selling the jammers in the first place then if it had that magical power???
"He continues to be oblivious about his own failure and the pain he has caused others. He is confirming that he is a self-absorbed narcissist with an inflated sense of self-confidence who has no remorse."
Breaking news....
CEO acts like a CEO
Stay tuned for more updates to this continuing story...
If only there was a shot which cured idiocy.
Even if there was, it wouldn't work. The idiots wouldn't take it.
What's to stop you from connecting to it as a "hotspot" to do your torrenting and then back to "normal" for the rest of your traffic?
I'm going to go with common sense.
After the first time you try this and it asks for your login details, and you now know that they can tell exactly who you are and that you aren't hiding in any way. You would probably decide not to bother the next time. (It would probably also be a slower connection anyway.)
'Has had', includes all previous editors of the site, not just the current ones.
I'd hate to see your edits if you don't understand even very simple grammar.
Legality is decided based on due process according to the Constitution. If you believe in the Constitution and claim to defend it, then you believe due process is the best and only way to decide legality in our country
This is not a question of whether Snowden was "right" or "wrong" but whether his actions were Constitutionally legal. I cannot see any reasonable argument that says they were.
Snowden is yet to have his day in court, so by what you have said anything he does is constitutional because it hasn't been proved otherwise. When he has his day in court, that same court can then declare all the other things unconstitutional.
You can't have your cake and eat it too, if it's obvious what Snowden did was counter to the constitution then it's just as obvious (I'd say even more-so) what the NSA did is counter also.
Though I do basically agree with most of what you said.
Of course it does. If I know you're coming I can take all the data/cash/family/etc and flee to Russia/China. Then wave my ass in your face.
Being authorised by the office of the president, or legislation makes no difference if the law is counter to the constitution. Eventually when it comes before a court it will be declared unconstitutional (assuming the judges are not corrupt, but that's a whole other problem) and retroactively will cease to exist.
The legal encyclopedia American Jurisprudence says the following in regard to constitutionality: The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and the name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it; an unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed ... An unconstitutional law is void. (16 Am. Jur. 2d, Sec. 178)
So you think the constitution is intrinsically broken, but you still want to follow all the things that are set up by that constitution. You still place the broken government of the day, above the broken constitution. Either way, shining a light on the whole mess is the best way to start fixing whatever it is that's broken.
I dnavid, hereby declare on oath, that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic (except when I'm just following orders, even if I know those orders are wrong and are counter to the constitution I'm swearing to protect).
If he was working for the Russians all along, he would have simply stayed put and kept stealing secrets.
No need to flee anywhere. He also wouldn't give a fuck about the domestic spying aspect, if he wanted to drive a wedge he could have released that part anonymously while giving all the other juicy secrets to the Russians.
Most people nowadays who are 'influenced' by Jesus are pretty much the opposite of what he preached.(So his direct influence can't be really all that strong.) It is Christianity and the Church that has all the influence, not the man. Stop pretending that they are one and the same. Do you actually think that the person Jesus, would approve of all the things that are now being done in his name?
Anyway the person who invented the number system or the wheel are many orders of magnitude more influential that him and we don't even know their names.
PS: The entire point of Christianity is to indoctrinate as many people as it can and have a set of rules to follow so as to create an us vs them mentality, then compete with all the other groups doing the same thing. The Jesus part is just a nice story to get bums on seats.
The Bible also advises you to drink your own urine
No you're thinking of kool-aide.
It's going to be super easy once the NSA gets its facial recognition database fully operational.
Maybe English is your 4th or 5th language, since you're obviously so smart, but something can't be 'very unrepresented'. Very doesn't work like that. Maybe you were thinking of very underrepresented, highly under-represented or something similar.