as for your #2, that's ignorant hate. you imagine the motivations of people you dislike. you're the problem, to arrogantly assume that, makes you a worse kind of person than what you describe
the id cards are a lot more time and money than just $5 bucks
you can't just make shit up, that makes your opinion invalid
it's an impediment to the poor, the Republicans know that. the Republicans are trying to keep the poor from voting
voter fraud by illegals has never, never been an issue in any election ever in the USA
it's just made up crap fearmongering hysteria to hurt real Americans. but since Republican ideology just boils down to "rich? we love you! you can do no wrong! poor? hurry up and die you piece of shit" then it tracks
it kind of blows my mind how Uber just said "fuck the laws" and expanded like crazy
don't get me wrong, i like Uber and I welcome the competition. in New York City now traditional taxi companies are getting their own apps to compete: that's innovation improving our lives, jolting complacency. made possible by Uber
but Uber is going to have increasing problems. you can't just flaunt local regulations. some of it is corrupt. but some of it, like safety and taxes, is valid and important and not a joke
you can have innovation without ignoring the laws Uber. which is what is going to happen anyways: Uber will come to bend to the will of the local ordinances one way or the other eventually
it's an interesting lesson though: expand like a weed by ignoring local laws, then get beaten into submission by local laws later. but by then you have serious market share. i am not sure that lesson transports to other market segments (pun intended), but it is indeed a very interesting lesson
illegals voting has never, ever been a problem that ever swayed any contest ever. it's a completely made up issue. so republicans can fake the fear, to push for laws that restrict poor people from voting
but keep on with your ignorant hysteria. you are the republican party: dumb and angry about stupid fears
republican efforts to disenfranchise the poor shows who and what they really stand for, and it's not the american people
soon enough though enough of the old assholes will die off, and not even gerrymandering will save them
in the 2014 midterms we see a "celebration" of republicans taking many congressional seats, and hand wringing about how and why democrats don't vote in the midterms
funny thing is though, millions of more democrats voted in the midterms than republicans. but they were all concentrated in democratic districts. only gerrymandering saved the republicans
it gets to the point though that no matter how crazy and convoluted you draw the districts, no insane shape will preserve that precious 51% majority
gerrymandering and disenfranchising poor voters is all the ideologically bankrupt party has left on their side
simple demographic inevitability points to their long term decline
soon enough though they will abandon their ignorant social conservative wedge issues and act like they were always the republican party of women's reproductive rights and gay marriage and marijuana legalization and reigning in police abuse of minorities and gun control. memory is short in politics
necessity will force the republican party of the future to abandon all the ignorant screeching of the republicans of today
so you're referring to republican efforts to make voting hard for poor people by insisting on them getting identification documents that can be expensive
as a kid looking over old copies at my grandfather's house. it was mystifying: here was a cartoon, something i understood, but they were alluding to topics and humor that was utterly beyond me
i remember you now. just stop responding to my comments please. i don't want to interact with you. usually i don't pay attention to names on comments but you're a particularly nasty piece of shit who always goes thuggish interpersonal instead of keeping it on topic. i'll try to remember your name and not respond to you anymore
you can't magically vote for whomever seems virtuous according to arbitrary "signs" you dumb shit
that isn't possible, for a voter to gauge a candidate's true character from a distance
you criminally go after the assholes that would corrupt AND you jail the corrupted when they fall. but the fight begins with the assholes who offer your government plata o plomo. they are the root of the problem
The only thing I learned from your comment is that random italics reads as douchey as people who randomly emphasize in their speech, attempting to sound authoritative but winding up seeming pedantic and pretentious.
That's an emotional argument. Which is the only thing your comment requires, as you didn't even touch the substance of my comment.
they depend upon most people just accepting their malice in order to succeed. your cynicism is what they need. congratulations, you're part of the problem
there's always people with bad intent in the world. what always blows my mind is the spineless self-defeating sort like yourself that simply accepts it when they rape you. you never put up a fight
i'm not asking you to man the ramparts. i'm simply asking you to say "this is wrong, and i don't accept it" rather than your current state of "there is no help coming and so we must accept being raped" no. help yourself, moron
replace them with state owned equipment, that private companies lease fractionally to provide services
genuine capitalist competition, rather than oligarchic corruption
as with many issues today, there is a problem in what people identify as the market in question, and what needs to be regulated for the market to work
where there is a natural monopoly: the cables in the ground, the state owns that. who pays for it? any company that wants to fractionally lease the cables, to provide services someone might want to pay for
similar to how the state currently leases radio spectrum to broadcasters and cell phone companies
yay capitalism: only possible with good regulation
because we take enforcement action {X} against {Y}, then enforcement action {W} against {Z} in inevitable
try these on:
"we can't legalize marijuana, because then we have to legalize methamphetamine and heroin"
"we can't legalize gay marriage, because then we have to legalize marrying the dead and marrying animals"
do you see the problem? good, then know yourself: the slippery slope argument is failure, appeal to emotion, fear
the slippery slope only works if you are dealing with people who never actually think about different topics involved
but we do think, and we can tell the difference, and the difference matters
i don't understand how people like you get to sleep knowing police stations exist. of course police have problems that need fixing, but without police you have chaos. but the way fear addled slippery slope thinkers think, it's as if the existence of police stations means extreme autocratic martial law is inevitable
actually the police station is a good analogy to your "complaint." that someone with access to the hashlist puts pictures of his ex girlfriend on it is simply an individual abuse, meaning that individual needs to be punished. it isn't a valid argument against the existence of the list. much as with the police: the existence of bad apples doesn't mean the entire existence of police is in question, it simply means we have to do a better job of kicking out the bad apples
the simple truth is the the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy that depends upon appeal to emotion: irrational fear, rather than reason and coherent thought
anyone who ever makes a slippery slope argument is simply identifying themselves as someone who wants to lose an argument, and strongly suggests their opinion is derived from fear rather than logic, and is therefore invalid and can be discarded
the recent shrink of the middle class is awful. it mostly has to do with morons who think socialism is pure evil and the man with lots of money can do no wrong. this will change as more and more feel the negative economic effects of what kind of society this blindness results in
the nordic countries and canada show you can guarantee people basic standards of living and still be capitalist. capitalism is not automatically full social darwinism. because you won't let people lose their house because they get cancer, or that we educate people born in the ghetto well, does not mean capitalism has been destroyed and evil socialism wins
it's a retarded false choice believed by people who never think about this issue and act with an almost religious conviction about economic concepts they don't even understand the fucking basics of. the best societies are a *mix*. capitalist, with social safety nets, or socialist, with a capitalist engine. these societies are richest and happiest. the loser miserable societies are the ones that are ideologically "pure"
anyway, this all off-topic. this topic is not part of the conversation about intellectual property
we defeated the plutocrats before, in the gilded age, and got workplace safety, work week caps, end to child labor, etc. next we will get government child care, generous parental leave, good wage minimums, etc.
we will get that, we really will. the morons are dying off or waking up about the mindlessness of cold war era propaganda about "evil socialism." universal healthcare, cheaper (much much cheaper) and better quality care, as realized in canada, japan, germany, australia, france, etc.: all of our fucking capitalist democratic peers, is not the same fucking thing as the USSR with gulags, even though so many brain dead fucking retards in the usa believe this for some low iq reason
my point is simply: don't be so spooked and grow a fucking backbone. plutocrats are just rich morons, look at donald trump for example. there's nothing to be scared of, we beat the losers before, we'll beat them again. just beat the fucks and stop being such a defeatist weak piece of shit scared of his own shadow
of intellectual property was to protect the little guy with the good idea from being abused by the big guy with the deep pockets
the intent has been completely subverted and destroyed and now intellectual property simple serves as another club the big guy with deep pockets can use to rob the little guy with the idea
the concept of intellectual property, the very notion of it, is completely logically and morally bankrupt, and must die
now i'm no air head optimist, i may never see it happen in my lifetime. it's a slow change. but remember the printing press led to some radical changes in society. when education became cheap, a middle class grew from the previously illiterate serfs, and this class demanded power, giving rise to modern concept of democracy. it took centuries
likewise, the internet is going to radically change society. and it will also take centuries for all the implications of a new disruptive technology to work it's way out. just like the printing press
aristocrats then whined "not fair" like some do today as the changes begin. but on the contrary: the radical changes are all about making it more fair, for more people
Slashdot Mirror
http://today.law.harvard.edu/w...
as for your #2, that's ignorant hate. you imagine the motivations of people you dislike. you're the problem, to arrogantly assume that, makes you a worse kind of person than what you describe
the id cards are a lot more time and money than just $5 bucks
you can't just make shit up, that makes your opinion invalid
it's an impediment to the poor, the Republicans know that. the Republicans are trying to keep the poor from voting
voter fraud by illegals has never, never been an issue in any election ever in the USA
it's just made up crap fearmongering hysteria to hurt real Americans. but since Republican ideology just boils down to "rich? we love you! you can do no wrong! poor? hurry up and die you piece of shit" then it tracks
it kind of blows my mind how Uber just said "fuck the laws" and expanded like crazy
don't get me wrong, i like Uber and I welcome the competition. in New York City now traditional taxi companies are getting their own apps to compete: that's innovation improving our lives, jolting complacency. made possible by Uber
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08...
but Uber is going to have increasing problems. you can't just flaunt local regulations. some of it is corrupt. but some of it, like safety and taxes, is valid and important and not a joke
you can have innovation without ignoring the laws Uber. which is what is going to happen anyways: Uber will come to bend to the will of the local ordinances one way or the other eventually
it's an interesting lesson though: expand like a weed by ignoring local laws, then get beaten into submission by local laws later. but by then you have serious market share. i am not sure that lesson transports to other market segments (pun intended), but it is indeed a very interesting lesson
illegals voting has never, ever been a problem that ever swayed any contest ever. it's a completely made up issue. so republicans can fake the fear, to push for laws that restrict poor people from voting
but keep on with your ignorant hysteria. you are the republican party: dumb and angry about stupid fears
yes, that is the ignorant propaganda they use to sell their poor-hating initiative. nicely regurgitated, good little partisan tool
exactly, thank you
republican efforts to disenfranchise the poor shows who and what they really stand for, and it's not the american people
soon enough though enough of the old assholes will die off, and not even gerrymandering will save them
in the 2014 midterms we see a "celebration" of republicans taking many congressional seats, and hand wringing about how and why democrats don't vote in the midterms
funny thing is though, millions of more democrats voted in the midterms than republicans. but they were all concentrated in democratic districts. only gerrymandering saved the republicans
it gets to the point though that no matter how crazy and convoluted you draw the districts, no insane shape will preserve that precious 51% majority
gerrymandering and disenfranchising poor voters is all the ideologically bankrupt party has left on their side
simple demographic inevitability points to their long term decline
soon enough though they will abandon their ignorant social conservative wedge issues and act like they were always the republican party of women's reproductive rights and gay marriage and marijuana legalization and reigning in police abuse of minorities and gun control. memory is short in politics
necessity will force the republican party of the future to abandon all the ignorant screeching of the republicans of today
tick tock, tick tock
so you're referring to republican efforts to make voting hard for poor people by insisting on them getting identification documents that can be expensive
got it
yes, they are very dry
i get them now, as an adult
as a kid looking over old copies at my grandfather's house. it was mystifying: here was a cartoon, something i understood, but they were alluding to topics and humor that was utterly beyond me
i remember you now. just stop responding to my comments please. i don't want to interact with you. usually i don't pay attention to names on comments but you're a particularly nasty piece of shit who always goes thuggish interpersonal instead of keeping it on topic. i'll try to remember your name and not respond to you anymore
(spoiler)
the corruptor is the problem you moron
the corrupted is a long list that never ends
you can't magically vote for whomever seems virtuous according to arbitrary "signs" you dumb shit
that isn't possible, for a voter to gauge a candidate's true character from a distance
you criminally go after the assholes that would corrupt AND you jail the corrupted when they fall. but the fight begins with the assholes who offer your government plata o plomo. they are the root of the problem
The only thing I learned from your comment is that random italics reads as douchey as people who randomly emphasize in their speech, attempting to sound authoritative but winding up seeming pedantic and pretentious.
That's an emotional argument. Which is the only thing your comment requires, as you didn't even touch the substance of my comment.
i never understood people who come at this problem from the point of view of the corrupted, and never from the point of view of the corruptor
you can always find corruptible people
the point is to go after the corruptors
i'm not saying that's easy now or that we have that legal framework now. but that is what is needed to solve this problem
maybe with a big enough stink- which is coming, considering what unchecked corruption is doing to the usa
they could have had such trollish fun
and called it "Skynet"
they depend upon most people just accepting their malice in order to succeed. your cynicism is what they need. congratulations, you're part of the problem
there's always people with bad intent in the world. what always blows my mind is the spineless self-defeating sort like yourself that simply accepts it when they rape you. you never put up a fight
i'm not asking you to man the ramparts. i'm simply asking you to say "this is wrong, and i don't accept it" rather than your current state of "there is no help coming and so we must accept being raped" no. help yourself, moron
telcos and cable companies, fuck them both
replace them with state owned equipment, that private companies lease fractionally to provide services
genuine capitalist competition, rather than oligarchic corruption
as with many issues today, there is a problem in what people identify as the market in question, and what needs to be regulated for the market to work
where there is a natural monopoly: the cables in the ground, the state owns that. who pays for it? any company that wants to fractionally lease the cables, to provide services someone might want to pay for
similar to how the state currently leases radio spectrum to broadcasters and cell phone companies
yay capitalism: only possible with good regulation
fuck the cable companies. may they all die for being the abusive, government corrupting oligarchy they are
because we take enforcement action {X} against {Y}, then enforcement action {W} against {Z} in inevitable
try these on:
"we can't legalize marijuana, because then we have to legalize methamphetamine and heroin"
"we can't legalize gay marriage, because then we have to legalize marrying the dead and marrying animals"
do you see the problem? good, then know yourself: the slippery slope argument is failure, appeal to emotion, fear
the slippery slope only works if you are dealing with people who never actually think about different topics involved
but we do think, and we can tell the difference, and the difference matters
i don't understand how people like you get to sleep knowing police stations exist. of course police have problems that need fixing, but without police you have chaos. but the way fear addled slippery slope thinkers think, it's as if the existence of police stations means extreme autocratic martial law is inevitable
actually the police station is a good analogy to your "complaint." that someone with access to the hashlist puts pictures of his ex girlfriend on it is simply an individual abuse, meaning that individual needs to be punished. it isn't a valid argument against the existence of the list. much as with the police: the existence of bad apples doesn't mean the entire existence of police is in question, it simply means we have to do a better job of kicking out the bad apples
the simple truth is the the slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy that depends upon appeal to emotion: irrational fear, rather than reason and coherent thought
anyone who ever makes a slippery slope argument is simply identifying themselves as someone who wants to lose an argument, and strongly suggests their opinion is derived from fear rather than logic, and is therefore invalid and can be discarded
well said
do you see the story you are commenting under?
do you see any problems there?
good!
now try commenting again, this time actually commenting on the actual fucking reality of the topic
thanks
the recent shrink of the middle class is awful. it mostly has to do with morons who think socialism is pure evil and the man with lots of money can do no wrong. this will change as more and more feel the negative economic effects of what kind of society this blindness results in
the nordic countries and canada show you can guarantee people basic standards of living and still be capitalist. capitalism is not automatically full social darwinism. because you won't let people lose their house because they get cancer, or that we educate people born in the ghetto well, does not mean capitalism has been destroyed and evil socialism wins
it's a retarded false choice believed by people who never think about this issue and act with an almost religious conviction about economic concepts they don't even understand the fucking basics of. the best societies are a *mix*. capitalist, with social safety nets, or socialist, with a capitalist engine. these societies are richest and happiest. the loser miserable societies are the ones that are ideologically "pure"
anyway, this all off-topic. this topic is not part of the conversation about intellectual property
we defeated the plutocrats before, in the gilded age, and got workplace safety, work week caps, end to child labor, etc. next we will get government child care, generous parental leave, good wage minimums, etc.
we will get that, we really will. the morons are dying off or waking up about the mindlessness of cold war era propaganda about "evil socialism." universal healthcare, cheaper (much much cheaper) and better quality care, as realized in canada, japan, germany, australia, france, etc.: all of our fucking capitalist democratic peers, is not the same fucking thing as the USSR with gulags, even though so many brain dead fucking retards in the usa believe this for some low iq reason
my point is simply: don't be so spooked and grow a fucking backbone. plutocrats are just rich morons, look at donald trump for example. there's nothing to be scared of, we beat the losers before, we'll beat them again. just beat the fucks and stop being such a defeatist weak piece of shit scared of his own shadow
- he said, under a story showing the exact opposite
controlling information is the impossible battle
saying you can't control it is my position
of intellectual property was to protect the little guy with the good idea from being abused by the big guy with the deep pockets
the intent has been completely subverted and destroyed and now intellectual property simple serves as another club the big guy with deep pockets can use to rob the little guy with the idea
the concept of intellectual property, the very notion of it, is completely logically and morally bankrupt, and must die
now i'm no air head optimist, i may never see it happen in my lifetime. it's a slow change. but remember the printing press led to some radical changes in society. when education became cheap, a middle class grew from the previously illiterate serfs, and this class demanded power, giving rise to modern concept of democracy. it took centuries
likewise, the internet is going to radically change society. and it will also take centuries for all the implications of a new disruptive technology to work it's way out. just like the printing press
aristocrats then whined "not fair" like some do today as the changes begin. but on the contrary: the radical changes are all about making it more fair, for more people
give it time
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...