Also, I thought Republicans didn't like the government interfering in business? Wouldn't forcing a company to redo its entire operations just to keep everything in America fall under government interference?
The idea that Republicans don't like big government is clearly just a sham, a lie from the candidates to get the voters to vote for them. Republicans love big government when it comes to the military, intervention abroad, medicare, the war on drugs, opposing immigration, and a host of other issues. Maybe some of the individual Republican voters don't like big government, but for the most part they lap it up.
Laurence Vance is one writer you can find online who does a great job pointing out how Republicans support big government.
The biggest problem with backdoors is not that they weaken encryption, although that's terrible. The biggest problem is that even with a warrant government shouldn't even know this stuff. ISIS or Daesh or whatever the heck they called it never endangered me. Never has, never will. But "my" government endangers me every day by getting involved in these situations and by making them worse. And now, conveniently, the fix for their screwups, according to them, is for me to sacrifice my liberty and weaken my technology.
I'd say "no thanks," but I don't get a choice. So instead I'm like the guy at a traffic stop having my car searched by an officer without probable cause. I won't resist you doing this to me, but I do not consent.
I read the whole story summary and I still don't know what "spotlighting harassment" means, in astronomy or anywhere else. I assumed it meant preventing people from engaging in astronomy by shining bright lights or something, but then other fields are mentioned.
Maybe the linked articles explain it, but from the summary it doesn't sound like they do.
Without a central authority declaring how much a $CURRENCY_UNIT is worth, it's now a democratic decision, influenced primarily by people who possess large quantities of them, as is evident in the Bitcoin community. Whenever currency is involved, there will always be *someone* in charge of determining the value of that currency in terms of the objects intended to be purchased with it.
I'd say the solution to that is for people to be able to declare that they aren't going to use $CURRENCY_UNIT any more and will instead use something else. So somebody has snagged up all the bitcoins or gold or matchsticks or whatever, and the rest of us trade with something else.
Is there an option? Short of Gene Roddenberry's Utopian society founded upon altruism and self-control...the two options are "a centralized administration" or "tyranny by the wealthy".
No altruism or self-control involved in my proposed solution. Just freedom for all.
The point of those 'systemically important institutions' is that they're supposed to keep the playing field somewhat-level. They trade liberty for stability, and when it comes to money, that's a trade that most stable countries worldwide make in some form
And it's not suspicious to you that the powerful (nation states) are happy to trade our liberty for their stability?
I don't cite my college professors when I write code. To me on Stack Overflow we are teaching each other. If I teach somebody how to do something, now they know, and they can go do it. I don't expect them to cite me. Of course I'm not gonna complain if somebody wants to cite me, give me an award, send me a check, etc.
this is how the vast majority of millionaires BECOME millionaires - buying a bit of stock each month, typically through a mutual fund.
This is a widely held belief, but its false. The average millionaire is a millionaire because of the concept of dynastic wealth. They are rich through the lottery of birth
If only people couldn't vote and the majority didn't rule.
What about "if people actually engaged their brains occasionally, stopped worshipping authority and actually turned up to vote"?
They do that regularly, and they come to conclusions that you and I don't like, and then we are forced to live by them. And you want more of them to get involved???
Google has no problem allowing other e-book websites to illegally offer a number of our e-book titles, either free or at reduced rates, to anyone on the Internet
Even if this were true instead of a complete misunderstanding, what's wrong with that? I also have no problem with other ebook websites illegally offering 100% of your ebook titles, either free or at reduced rates, to anyone on the Internet. I don't agree with copyright law, and I'm not legally required to agree with it, and I won't lift a finger to help enforce it unless required to do so by law.
Exactly! We should have all learned in history class that one of the things that helped America become great in the beginning was the British empire's salutary neglect. We need more of that, i.e., a government that does less!
Secession doesn't have to be the first thing you go to. My point is that it should be explicitly allowed. If it were explicitly allowed a lot of things would be different and you'd be much less likely to ever get to the point of needing it, and we'd have a lot less people contemplating it.
From a certain point of view a person practicing civil disobedience may be said to have seceded, perhaps partially. In the late 1700s and early 1800s many or most of the statesmen in the U.S. believed in the right of states to nullify federal laws, which was a precursor before ever needing secession. If you check some of the writings and speeches of Thomas Woods talking about this, you'd be surprised who was doing it.
82 years old with no fucking clue what she's talking about.
Yeah, my first thought was if she's concerned about the playstation she should install monitoring software on it. Right after she learns how to set the clock on her VCR.
Slashdot Mirror
+6, you just made my day!
Go to Soylent News, then.
They should change the slogan to "Half-Story Clickbait to Bring the Foaming-at-the-Mouth People to the Site". Not catchy enough?
Nerds are frequently concerned with stories about rights and injustice.
Politicians seem to have a natural immunity to cognitive dissonance
So do voters - it's a match made in heaven!
Also, I thought Republicans didn't like the government interfering in business? Wouldn't forcing a company to redo its entire operations just to keep everything in America fall under government interference?
The idea that Republicans don't like big government is clearly just a sham, a lie from the candidates to get the voters to vote for them. Republicans love big government when it comes to the military, intervention abroad, medicare, the war on drugs, opposing immigration, and a host of other issues. Maybe some of the individual Republican voters don't like big government, but for the most part they lap it up.
Laurence Vance is one writer you can find online who does a great job pointing out how Republicans support big government.
The biggest problem I have is that they are implicitly asserting that they have the authority to everyone's data. My view is that they do not.
I agree. That's what I was saying.
There is NO technical means by which you can have a backdoor which is only usable by one government
My point is that even if there were, that wouldn't be a good thing.
The biggest problem with backdoors is not that they weaken encryption, although that's terrible. The biggest problem is that even with a warrant government shouldn't even know this stuff. ISIS or Daesh or whatever the heck they called it never endangered me. Never has, never will. But "my" government endangers me every day by getting involved in these situations and by making them worse. And now, conveniently, the fix for their screwups, according to them, is for me to sacrifice my liberty and weaken my technology.
I'd say "no thanks," but I don't get a choice. So instead I'm like the guy at a traffic stop having my car searched by an officer without probable cause. I won't resist you doing this to me, but I do not consent.
BravoCoin and CharlieCoin need a way to define what they're worth
That's not how floating exchange rates and currency exchange work. That is not how currencies have been valued in a long time.
I read the whole story summary and I still don't know what "spotlighting harassment" means, in astronomy or anywhere else. I assumed it meant preventing people from engaging in astronomy by shining bright lights or something, but then other fields are mentioned.
Maybe the linked articles explain it, but from the summary it doesn't sound like they do.
Without a central authority declaring how much a $CURRENCY_UNIT is worth, it's now a democratic decision, influenced primarily by people who possess large quantities of them, as is evident in the Bitcoin community. Whenever currency is involved, there will always be *someone* in charge of determining the value of that currency in terms of the objects intended to be purchased with it.
I'd say the solution to that is for people to be able to declare that they aren't going to use $CURRENCY_UNIT any more and will instead use something else. So somebody has snagged up all the bitcoins or gold or matchsticks or whatever, and the rest of us trade with something else.
This book was really helpful to my thinking about money: http://tinyurl.com/2q4lok
Is there an option? Short of Gene Roddenberry's Utopian society founded upon altruism and self-control...the two options are "a centralized administration" or "tyranny by the wealthy".
No altruism or self-control involved in my proposed solution. Just freedom for all.
The point of those 'systemically important institutions' is that they're supposed to keep the playing field somewhat-level. They trade liberty for stability, and when it comes to money, that's a trade that most stable countries worldwide make in some form
And it's not suspicious to you that the powerful (nation states) are happy to trade our liberty for their stability?
I don't cite my college professors when I write code. To me on Stack Overflow we are teaching each other. If I teach somebody how to do something, now they know, and they can go do it. I don't expect them to cite me. Of course I'm not gonna complain if somebody wants to cite me, give me an award, send me a check, etc.
this is how the vast majority of millionaires BECOME millionaires - buying a bit of stock each month, typically through a mutual fund.
This is a widely held belief, but its false. The average millionaire is a millionaire because of the concept of dynastic wealth. They are rich through the lottery of birth
{{citation-needed}}, for both of you.
+6. Thank you for that cool information that I was not aware of.
If only people couldn't vote and the majority didn't rule.
What about "if people actually engaged their brains occasionally, stopped worshipping authority and actually turned up to vote"?
They do that regularly, and they come to conclusions that you and I don't like, and then we are forced to live by them. And you want more of them to get involved???
The majority doesn't rule though, a select few who were elected by the majority rules
As if that layer of indirection actually fixes the problem!
If only people couldn't vote and the majority didn't rule.
Google has no problem allowing other e-book websites to illegally offer a number of our e-book titles, either free or at reduced rates, to anyone on the Internet
Even if this were true instead of a complete misunderstanding, what's wrong with that? I also have no problem with other ebook websites illegally offering 100% of your ebook titles, either free or at reduced rates, to anyone on the Internet. I don't agree with copyright law, and I'm not legally required to agree with it, and I won't lift a finger to help enforce it unless required to do so by law.
First World problems right there.
So?
This year I've become a huge fan and user of Rehash.
Exactly! We should have all learned in history class that one of the things that helped America become great in the beginning was the British empire's salutary neglect. We need more of that, i.e., a government that does less!
Secession doesn't have to be the first thing you go to. My point is that it should be explicitly allowed. If it were explicitly allowed a lot of things would be different and you'd be much less likely to ever get to the point of needing it, and we'd have a lot less people contemplating it.
From a certain point of view a person practicing civil disobedience may be said to have seceded, perhaps partially. In the late 1700s and early 1800s many or most of the statesmen in the U.S. believed in the right of states to nullify federal laws, which was a precursor before ever needing secession. If you check some of the writings and speeches of Thomas Woods talking about this, you'd be surprised who was doing it .
In the meantime, I'll just keep practicing civil disobedience.
82 years old with no fucking clue what she's talking about.
Yeah, my first thought was if she's concerned about the playstation she should install monitoring software on it. Right after she learns how to set the clock on her VCR.