In my opinion, a natural right is one where nobody but yourself has to take action on order for you to exercise that right, and that right doesn't infringe on the natural rights of others when exercised. A government would have to take action for you to not exercise that right.
With regard to water, suppose somebody decides to live in a very remote desert region. If water is a human right, then who is responsible for delivering water to this person? Argue all you want about how the government must do so, but unless your government promises this somehow, there isn't any inherent reason that it must do so.
Now if a government entity required private citizens to take action that they don't want to take, then that government is violating their natural rights. Thus, there is no obligation for Nestle to provide water.
Oh, and as for the earlier comment that people can't claim ownership of things they didn't create, the poster must believe that he doesn't own his computer either.
One of the courses I took while getting my IT project management degree required a textbook that mainly focused on case studies of pitfalls to avoid. Somewhere near the beginning of the book, they quoted Gates as saying that, and I kind of rolled my eyes. Though to be honest, that book was crap anyways when it came to actual technical stuff; for example it plainly stated that the TCP/IP model is the gold standard of troubleshooting networks, while the OSI model was falling out of favor....false, false, and false. What's worse is that this was the 7th edition of the book. While I'm sure the authors of the book were probably good project managers because they understood the value of listening to project stakeholders, they fail at research, even doing retarded shit like citing wikipedia instead of using wikipedia's references.
People expressing their opinions as foreign nationals, and specifically stating that they are from another country, is not even in the same ballpark as: the son of a presidential candidate having clandestine meetings with Russian spies, or a campaign manager taking millions of dollars in Russian mob money, or the National Security Advisor having to literally register as a foreign agent; or Russian agents making bot accounts to leave thousands of pro-Trump messages on various forums pretending to be Americans. Take your false equivalence elsewhere.
Foreign influence is foreign influence, no matter the circumstances. If you want to go about it your way, then you can argue that a private citizen in another country can just go ahead and buy ads for political messages, which will be legal even if this person was bankrolled by a government entity.
While I am no fan of HRC, to say that she ignored the wants of the states that she lost dismisses the fact that she had a lot of plans in place, and that she communicated those plans quite well time and time again. The problem was that she was perceived as having no empathy for the plight of these people. It's the same problem I have with my wife sometimes. If she tells me about a problem she is having, I always jump to, "here is how we can solve this." All she wants to hear is, "I understand what you are saying, and that this problem is important to you." Although I'm sure that if Hillary tried her husband's "I feel your pain" shtick, she would have been lampooned for that as well. She was just an atrocious candidate.
If somebody repeatedly refers to you with terms like 'a deplorable', you won't give a flying fuck what their plans are for you. Besides, during her campaign, Hillary didn't bother visiting these states, instead holding rallies in states with people she liked. Guess who did visit these states?
Now Trump on the other hand, did a great job of empathizing with people. It's just that the solutions he offered, and the solutions he's trying to deliver, won't actually help the people who got him into office.
Most voters have not a clue about what their guy plans on doing, so this doesn't matter. In fact, I recall during the 08 election, most people I spoke to who were voting for Obama just said that they were voting for him because their friends were voting for him. Practically none of them knew what his campaign was all about. This lady certainly didn't:
For most voters, emphathizing and understanding is all that matters.
For the record, I think that marginalizing racist assholes is a way better solution than saying they are "very fine people."
Actually the thing about that...it won't work. In fact when you do this kind of thing, it tends to backfire. Look at the anti-vaccine movement; the more you tell them that it's stupid, the more they hold firm in their beliefs.
Even then, most of the people you're talking about aren't racist. Hell, I've had people on slashdot label me a racist just because I think black lives matter shouldn't be allowed to block freeways, and that the "unfair campaign" was retarded.
But even with them, I do not tolerate statements about how impressive it is that he has the balls to break apart Mexican families by arresting parents at a children's hospital, or how funny it would be if you had to eat a bacon sandwich to get through the TSA checkpoint.
Usually statements like these are in jest, in my experience. The person wouldn't actually do these things themselves. I've heard people say they'd force a kid with peanut allergies to eat peanuts rather than ban peanut butter sandwiches f
It seems to me that the more popular console games these days have their roots on PCs. Consolitis fucked over a few PC games though, like Skyrim, which had that really crappy flash based menu system that worked well for controllers, but not for mice, and overall the game's control system was really broken for kb+mouse, even though Oblivion didn't have these console problems.
No, it's because GP is correct. Hillary's campaign mostly catered to upper spectrum socioeconomic democrats, while ignoring the wants of practically all of the states that she lost, while at the same time referring to them as "deplorables" and "angry white men", with the media (especially pop-culture talk shows like the view, the daily show, etc) and the democratic political elite doing the same. I see the democrats talk about how we need to protect marginalized groups all the time, and it seems that their solution to protecting them is by marginalizing another group. (European politicians are doing the same thing on a large scale lately, by the way, and they wonder why there's a sudden dramatic rise in the number of people voting for far, far right parties.)
You yourself are beholden to this exact same hypocrisy.
Hillary's loss was well deserved. Besides, I distinctly recall during the 2004 election when the Democrats were praising foreign intervention:
$2.6 Billion for a field that isn't actually legal anywhere yet?
It is legal in many places so long as a person is in the driver's seat, but that person doesn't have to actually have their hands on the wheel or any feet on any pedals. It's for testing purposes while the technology matures well enough to be used by consumers.
For a product that doesn't actually exist?
Very much so, especially for a product that is likely to have implications for the economy in a range approaching (or perhaps exceeding) a trillion dollars. For $2.8 billion, Uber would be getting off easy if they were to compete with Google very quickly after the technology debuts, using years of very expensive research and development IP stolen from Google. If I were Google, I'd also be demanding a judgement that Uber cannot be in the self-driving business for at least 20 years, and that their existing self-driving technology cannot be sold or otherwise transfered to a third party, even if Uber goes bankrupt and its assets have to be sold off.
Al Yankovich uses other works for satire all the time; take for example his "bought it on ebay" song.
Even if your argument held true, at all, I doubt it would make any difference. I haven't read the comic at all, but my guess is that they could defend it on the grounds of saying that pepe is a nazi, or something like that, based on events in the comic.
It doesn't matter, either way they were trying to enforce copyright, and nobody actually challenged it in court. Furthermore, even if they couldn't copyright this, they still have the DMCA anti-circumvention clause on their side.
Sites like Digg and Reddit were trying to delete that number from their site, but the more they did it, the more people just kept posting it, so they just gave up. Digg made a public comment that they'll stop trying to delete them and that they'll just have to find a way to deal with any lawsuits that come. However, the MPAA never did anything beyond issuing DMCA takedowns, and I strongly suspect that they spoke with social media platforms and realized that even if they did win money and injunctions, it still wouldn't succeed at anything other than killing off these social media platforms outright, which wouldn't do them any favors.
Big deal. The MPAA has billions of dollars in its war chest, and it never succeeded in keeping the AACS keys off of the internet, and ultimately gave up.
A state has the right to set its own tax code, and that includes granting special exemptions to industries, people, companies, etc. Congress absolutely cannot touch this, and it's foolish to think otherwise.
The native americans, who introduced smoking to Europeans, held that abusing tobacco was a taboo over at least 1,000 years earlier, but probably longer.
I don't see anything like that in it. I do see this:
Mapes and Dan Rather, among many other journalists, had been investigating for several years the story of Bush's alleged failure to fulfill his obligations to the National Guard.[17]
In other words, they were investigating it, but there were no documents, witnesses, or other evidence. And yes, the reference is broken.
Another interesting bit:
On November 9, 2005, Mary Mapes gave an interview to ABC News correspondent Brian Ross. Mapes stated that the documents have never been proved to be forgeries. Ross expressed the view that the responsibility is on the reporter to verify their authenticity. Mapes responded with, "I don't think that's the standard." This stands in contrast to the statement of the president of CBS News that proof of authenticity is "the only acceptable journalistic standard."
And this one:
Also on September 10, The Dallas Morning News reported that "the officer named in one memo as exerting pressure to 'sugarcoat' Bush's military record was discharged a year and a half before the memo was written.[75] The paper cited a military record showing that Col. Walter "Buck" Staudt was honorably discharged on March 1, 1972, while the memo cited by CBS as showing that Staudt was interfering with evaluations of Bush was dated August 18, 1973."[76]
If anything, the wikipedia article on this has an overall tone of saying that the CBS narrative at the time was fraudulent; far removed from the "fake but accurate" narrative you are trying to push.
In fact, come to think of it, reading back in Killian's secretary's comments, she admits she had no firsthand knowledge about GWB, while shortly thereafter saying it was correct...Both statements seem contradictory, so she shouldn't be considered a reliable witness either.
That has been well established and corroborated by many witnesses.
Many (most?) of those witnesses turned out to be either lying or mislead into giving a false testimony. See page 129 in the Thornburgh-Boccardi report for example:
Practically the only witness who wasn't would be Killian's secretary, who came out of the woodwork after the fact. There were also many witnesses who recalled GWB volunteering for 90 days of service in Vietnam under a program they had at the time, but he didn't have enough flight hours to qualify. See page 61 and 130. Nobody ever brought this up.
However the right-wing noise machine was able to drown out all facts related to the case other than the memo's origin and I see that it is still working quite well here.
Go read the report. Likely every fact that you take for granted in this case was fraudulent. Mapes and Rather weren't fired for political reasons; they were fired because they wanted this story to be true so bad that they were completely willing to ignore inconsistencies in witness testimony while making almost no attempt at all to corroborate their sources.
Even without the memo, it's blatantly obvious that Rather and Mapes royally fucked up.
What's interesting is that if you read the Thornburgh-Boccardi report, Mary Mapes (the person who was investigating this story for CBS, and was fired along with Rather) had actually found several witnesses who indicated that GWB volunteered for service in Vietnam while at the Texas ANG, but didn't have enough flight hours to qualify. Among witnesses mentioned include a TexANG flight instructor and LTC Killian's son.
This isn't right or left wing, it's simple economics, and there isn't any commonly accepted economic theory that says that banks caused the depression.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed, and it's not exactly unprecedented....The country didn't end fascism until 1975, and Europe in general still loves censorship.
In my opinion, a natural right is one where nobody but yourself has to take action on order for you to exercise that right, and that right doesn't infringe on the natural rights of others when exercised. A government would have to take action for you to not exercise that right.
With regard to water, suppose somebody decides to live in a very remote desert region. If water is a human right, then who is responsible for delivering water to this person? Argue all you want about how the government must do so, but unless your government promises this somehow, there isn't any inherent reason that it must do so.
Now if a government entity required private citizens to take action that they don't want to take, then that government is violating their natural rights. Thus, there is no obligation for Nestle to provide water.
Oh, and as for the earlier comment that people can't claim ownership of things they didn't create, the poster must believe that he doesn't own his computer either.
One of the courses I took while getting my IT project management degree required a textbook that mainly focused on case studies of pitfalls to avoid. Somewhere near the beginning of the book, they quoted Gates as saying that, and I kind of rolled my eyes. Though to be honest, that book was crap anyways when it came to actual technical stuff; for example it plainly stated that the TCP/IP model is the gold standard of troubleshooting networks, while the OSI model was falling out of favor....false, false, and false. What's worse is that this was the 7th edition of the book. While I'm sure the authors of the book were probably good project managers because they understood the value of listening to project stakeholders, they fail at research, even doing retarded shit like citing wikipedia instead of using wikipedia's references.
People expressing their opinions as foreign nationals, and specifically stating that they are from another country, is not even in the same ballpark as: the son of a presidential candidate having clandestine meetings with Russian spies, or a campaign manager taking millions of dollars in Russian mob money, or the National Security Advisor having to literally register as a foreign agent; or Russian agents making bot accounts to leave thousands of pro-Trump messages on various forums pretending to be Americans. Take your false equivalence elsewhere.
Foreign influence is foreign influence, no matter the circumstances. If you want to go about it your way, then you can argue that a private citizen in another country can just go ahead and buy ads for political messages, which will be legal even if this person was bankrolled by a government entity.
While I am no fan of HRC, to say that she ignored the wants of the states that she lost dismisses the fact that she had a lot of plans in place, and that she communicated those plans quite well time and time again. The problem was that she was perceived as having no empathy for the plight of these people. It's the same problem I have with my wife sometimes. If she tells me about a problem she is having, I always jump to, "here is how we can solve this." All she wants to hear is, "I understand what you are saying, and that this problem is important to you." Although I'm sure that if Hillary tried her husband's "I feel your pain" shtick, she would have been lampooned for that as well. She was just an atrocious candidate.
If somebody repeatedly refers to you with terms like 'a deplorable', you won't give a flying fuck what their plans are for you. Besides, during her campaign, Hillary didn't bother visiting these states, instead holding rallies in states with people she liked. Guess who did visit these states?
Now Trump on the other hand, did a great job of empathizing with people. It's just that the solutions he offered, and the solutions he's trying to deliver, won't actually help the people who got him into office.
Most voters have not a clue about what their guy plans on doing, so this doesn't matter. In fact, I recall during the 08 election, most people I spoke to who were voting for Obama just said that they were voting for him because their friends were voting for him. Practically none of them knew what his campaign was all about. This lady certainly didn't:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
For most voters, emphathizing and understanding is all that matters.
For the record, I think that marginalizing racist assholes is a way better solution than saying they are "very fine people."
Actually the thing about that...it won't work. In fact when you do this kind of thing, it tends to backfire. Look at the anti-vaccine movement; the more you tell them that it's stupid, the more they hold firm in their beliefs.
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyl...
Even then, most of the people you're talking about aren't racist. Hell, I've had people on slashdot label me a racist just because I think black lives matter shouldn't be allowed to block freeways, and that the "unfair campaign" was retarded.
But even with them, I do not tolerate statements about how impressive it is that he has the balls to break apart Mexican families by arresting parents at a children's hospital, or how funny it would be if you had to eat a bacon sandwich to get through the TSA checkpoint.
Usually statements like these are in jest, in my experience. The person wouldn't actually do these things themselves. I've heard people say they'd force a kid with peanut allergies to eat peanuts rather than ban peanut butter sandwiches f
That's called a ten foot UI, and it's not new. PC games have been using that since way before consolitis was a thing.
How so?
It seems to me that the more popular console games these days have their roots on PCs. Consolitis fucked over a few PC games though, like Skyrim, which had that really crappy flash based menu system that worked well for controllers, but not for mice, and overall the game's control system was really broken for kb+mouse, even though Oblivion didn't have these console problems.
No, it's because GP is correct. Hillary's campaign mostly catered to upper spectrum socioeconomic democrats, while ignoring the wants of practically all of the states that she lost, while at the same time referring to them as "deplorables" and "angry white men", with the media (especially pop-culture talk shows like the view, the daily show, etc) and the democratic political elite doing the same. I see the democrats talk about how we need to protect marginalized groups all the time, and it seems that their solution to protecting them is by marginalizing another group. (European politicians are doing the same thing on a large scale lately, by the way, and they wonder why there's a sudden dramatic rise in the number of people voting for far, far right parties.)
You yourself are beholden to this exact same hypocrisy.
Hillary's loss was well deserved. Besides, I distinctly recall during the 2004 election when the Democrats were praising foreign intervention:
https://www.theguardian.com/wo...
Not that I support Russian intervention, mind you, nor do I support Trump, nor am I a conservative.
Wasn't Bill Gate's brain, most likely IBM's brain:
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/...
Bill Gates didn't actually say that.
https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/...
$2.6 Billion for a field that isn't actually legal anywhere yet?
It is legal in many places so long as a person is in the driver's seat, but that person doesn't have to actually have their hands on the wheel or any feet on any pedals. It's for testing purposes while the technology matures well enough to be used by consumers.
For a product that doesn't actually exist?
Very much so, especially for a product that is likely to have implications for the economy in a range approaching (or perhaps exceeding) a trillion dollars. For $2.8 billion, Uber would be getting off easy if they were to compete with Google very quickly after the technology debuts, using years of very expensive research and development IP stolen from Google. If I were Google, I'd also be demanding a judgement that Uber cannot be in the self-driving business for at least 20 years, and that their existing self-driving technology cannot be sold or otherwise transfered to a third party, even if Uber goes bankrupt and its assets have to be sold off.
Al Yankovich uses other works for satire all the time; take for example his "bought it on ebay" song.
Even if your argument held true, at all, I doubt it would make any difference. I haven't read the comic at all, but my guess is that they could defend it on the grounds of saying that pepe is a nazi, or something like that, based on events in the comic.
It doesn't matter, either way they were trying to enforce copyright, and nobody actually challenged it in court. Furthermore, even if they couldn't copyright this, they still have the DMCA anti-circumvention clause on their side.
Sites like Digg and Reddit were trying to delete that number from their site, but the more they did it, the more people just kept posting it, so they just gave up. Digg made a public comment that they'll stop trying to delete them and that they'll just have to find a way to deal with any lawsuits that come. However, the MPAA never did anything beyond issuing DMCA takedowns, and I strongly suspect that they spoke with social media platforms and realized that even if they did win money and injunctions, it still wouldn't succeed at anything other than killing off these social media platforms outright, which wouldn't do them any favors.
Big deal. The MPAA has billions of dollars in its war chest, and it never succeeded in keeping the AACS keys off of the internet, and ultimately gave up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
A state has the right to set its own tax code, and that includes granting special exemptions to industries, people, companies, etc. Congress absolutely cannot touch this, and it's foolish to think otherwise.
The native americans, who introduced smoking to Europeans, held that abusing tobacco was a taboo over at least 1,000 years earlier, but probably longer.
You speak as though Google and Youtube have been without ads before.
Which wikipedia article? This one?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I don't see anything like that in it. I do see this:
Mapes and Dan Rather, among many other journalists, had been investigating for several years the story of Bush's alleged failure to fulfill his obligations to the National Guard.[17]
In other words, they were investigating it, but there were no documents, witnesses, or other evidence. And yes, the reference is broken.
Another interesting bit:
On November 9, 2005, Mary Mapes gave an interview to ABC News correspondent Brian Ross. Mapes stated that the documents have never been proved to be forgeries. Ross expressed the view that the responsibility is on the reporter to verify their authenticity. Mapes responded with, "I don't think that's the standard." This stands in contrast to the statement of the president of CBS News that proof of authenticity is "the only acceptable journalistic standard."
And this one:
Also on September 10, The Dallas Morning News reported that "the officer named in one memo as exerting pressure to 'sugarcoat' Bush's military record was discharged a year and a half before the memo was written.[75] The paper cited a military record showing that Col. Walter "Buck" Staudt was honorably discharged on March 1, 1972, while the memo cited by CBS as showing that Staudt was interfering with evaluations of Bush was dated August 18, 1973."[76]
If anything, the wikipedia article on this has an overall tone of saying that the CBS narrative at the time was fraudulent; far removed from the "fake but accurate" narrative you are trying to push.
In fact, come to think of it, reading back in Killian's secretary's comments, she admits she had no firsthand knowledge about GWB, while shortly thereafter saying it was correct...Both statements seem contradictory, so she shouldn't be considered a reliable witness either.
That has been well established and corroborated by many witnesses.
Many (most?) of those witnesses turned out to be either lying or mislead into giving a false testimony. See page 129 in the Thornburgh-Boccardi report for example:
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/...
Practically the only witness who wasn't would be Killian's secretary, who came out of the woodwork after the fact. There were also many witnesses who recalled GWB volunteering for 90 days of service in Vietnam under a program they had at the time, but he didn't have enough flight hours to qualify. See page 61 and 130. Nobody ever brought this up.
However the right-wing noise machine was able to drown out all facts related to the case other than the memo's origin and I see that it is still working quite well here.
Go read the report. Likely every fact that you take for granted in this case was fraudulent. Mapes and Rather weren't fired for political reasons; they were fired because they wanted this story to be true so bad that they were completely willing to ignore inconsistencies in witness testimony while making almost no attempt at all to corroborate their sources.
Even without the memo, it's blatantly obvious that Rather and Mapes royally fucked up.
What's interesting is that if you read the Thornburgh-Boccardi report, Mary Mapes (the person who was investigating this story for CBS, and was fired along with Rather) had actually found several witnesses who indicated that GWB volunteered for service in Vietnam while at the Texas ANG, but didn't have enough flight hours to qualify. Among witnesses mentioned include a TexANG flight instructor and LTC Killian's son.
See pages 61 and 130:
http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/...
Sometimes I need a ton of $1s...
I can understand the need to fap and all...but...damn....Just how long do you stay in those places?
First of all, I'm not right wing. Second of all, let's use the internet then:
https://sunlightfoundation.com...
http://fortune.com/2016/12/09/...
https://politics.slashdot.org/...
So no, it's not a falsehood. An example of a falsehood would be if somebody said that you were any smarter than a tic-tac.
This isn't right or left wing, it's simple economics, and there isn't any commonly accepted economic theory that says that banks caused the depression.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The most common consensus however, was that the federal reserve acted poorly.
I'll just leave this here.
https://www.nytimes.com/intera...