Um, yes, there is. English is the official language of the U.S. That the Constitution is written in it instead of some other language tells you this. The document tells you what you need to know. You just need to pay attention.
You're a pussy. Plain and simple. I sincerely hope that not only do you not procreate, but that you go ahead and remove yourself from the gene pool as well. Your assessment of what is clearly not a threat, and one in which 99.99% of humanity has expressed, shows that you have no business breathing. Thanks for fucking things up for the rest of us.
You do realize that you supported GP, not derailed him, right?
"There are already campaigns to remove Michael Atkinson from his seat of Croydon in the 2010 elections such as the Gamers4Croydon organisation. [gamers4croydon.org]"
This falls under, "ustralians decide to start acting like adults they can do something about their government."
McDonalds didn't make you eat their food. They did pump it full of all sorts of stuff that has no business being in food and who's only purpose is to trigger a hunger response and (possibly) be addictive. Then they lie about it. That's what they deserve to be sodomized for.
IANAL, but IIRC, privacy attaches to the person. There was case where a guy, being watched by authorities, was placing a phone call from a public phone booth. The authorities watching him bugged the booth without a warrant. The conversation was tossed because even though he was in a public place, he had a reasonable expectation of privacy while standing in a closed booth. SCOTUS case. Someone else can look it up. Assuming I'm remembering correctly (or close enough), how is this any different? Because it's going through the tubes? Idiot judge.
Epic fail, along with the gaggle of tools that modded you "Insightful." What's the argument this time? The copyright holder won't give you the product when you want it, so you're going to pirate it? You won't spend the $30 to buy it when it comes out, and instead of waiting a month and renting it for $2, you're going to pirate it. You are one cheap sonofabitch. It's assholes like you that encourage the MAFIAA's crap and make it so hard to get a real discussion on reform going. But thanks for fucking it up for everybody else.
"Won't matter if you're a copay or a percentage, you'll be taking that $100/dose because it's your health and you can't exactly put a price on your health."
It's absurd to suggest that any entity, individual or business, should be *assumed* to be breaking the law. TPTB are (allegedly) trained in applicable rules, regulations, codes and laws and file accordingly. If the state disagrees, it'll investigate and take appropriate actions.
FYI, your "Cow" example is what's known as a "Brightline falacy." What you've said is that since one can't point to the exact moment that one's individual rights were violated that it must mean that said violation never happened. This is incorrect.
Sooooo... make the license "After the fact." Boat goes out, catches what it can, comes into port for inspection, where appropriate (pro-rated) licenses are attached.
Really? It'll sell itself, will it? And yes, that is what you're claiming. Shall we starting a talley of how many great products have failed because of this idiotic mentality?
I consider myself to be a libertarian and, quite frankly, I find your post offensive and can see that you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
I like the idea of unions because 1) freedom of association and 2) it enables one to more readily enter into agreements with larger/more powerful employers on more even footing. What I'm not in favor of is the specific implementations seen in unions because of family experiences. Too many people exist in the union hierarchy who aren't actually part of the group that they allegedly represent. But as I said, I like the idea behind them just fine and I'm glad that they exist.
The rest of your "Insightful" post? Tripe. But I suppose it makes you feel good to pigeon-hole people you don't know, make baseless accusations and generally act like you think you're better than everyone else (or atleast those that you don't know).
I tend to think of myself as being "libertarian," though there are caveats. I'd rather let the market decide, unless the market has proven itself wholly incapable of regulating itself. I consider big business using money to change laws to their favor at the expense of private citizens to fall into that category and would hope that government would intervene on behalf of its citizens. You're right in that I'm more interested in "My freedom" over "Your freedom," (which is natural) but, again, with caveats. My freedom ends where your nose begins, as they say. When someone starts spouting off about their "Rights," the first question I ask is, "At who's expense?" If you require my participation to enable/enforce your "Rights" then it's not a right. And the reverse is also true. I don't expect (e.g., sense of entitlement) anything that requires others to act.
For the topic at hand, these chuckleheads proclaiming themselves to be "libertarians" are way off base. There's nothing in libertarian ideology that says that all things must be thought of in terms of how much money it'll make the individual. Why have a problem with someone making software free and open source? It's their right to do so. If enough people follow that path and it adversely affects Microsoft's bottom line, then I'd say that Microsoft (just an example) needs to alter its business model to acclimate to the changing times.
So you're saying that you don't think that government has a vested interest in promoting marriage? Maybe to encourage the current generation to create a new generation of tax payers? Children out of wedlock do this as well, of course, but the difference, to the government, is in the expected tax revenue generated. Just playing Devil's advocate.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, yes, there is. English is the official language of the U.S. That the Constitution is written in it instead of some other language tells you this. The document tells you what you need to know. You just need to pay attention.
Or maybe the accused should always be presumed innocent?
Who cares if it's a digital distribution? Seriously. Published is published.
You've never actually studied international ethics, have you. Your proposal is very noble, but incredibly naive.
Seriously? Please tell me you're kidding. That's the F/A-37 Talon from the movie, "Stealth." I know it was a lousy movie, but, come on.
You're a pussy. Plain and simple. I sincerely hope that not only do you not procreate, but that you go ahead and remove yourself from the gene pool as well. Your assessment of what is clearly not a threat, and one in which 99.99% of humanity has expressed, shows that you have no business breathing. Thanks for fucking things up for the rest of us.
You do realize that you supported GP, not derailed him, right?
"There are already campaigns to remove Michael Atkinson from his seat of Croydon in the 2010 elections such as the Gamers4Croydon organisation. [gamers4croydon.org]"
This falls under, "ustralians decide to start acting like adults they can do something about their government."
McDonalds didn't make you eat their food. They did pump it full of all sorts of stuff that has no business being in food and who's only purpose is to trigger a hunger response and (possibly) be addictive. Then they lie about it. That's what they deserve to be sodomized for.
IANAL, but IIRC, privacy attaches to the person. There was case where a guy, being watched by authorities, was placing a phone call from a public phone booth. The authorities watching him bugged the booth without a warrant. The conversation was tossed because even though he was in a public place, he had a reasonable expectation of privacy while standing in a closed booth. SCOTUS case. Someone else can look it up. Assuming I'm remembering correctly (or close enough), how is this any different? Because it's going through the tubes? Idiot judge.
So you want something other grants and scholarships?
Are you implying that I RTFA? You must be new here.
Epic fail, along with the gaggle of tools that modded you "Insightful." What's the argument this time? The copyright holder won't give you the product when you want it, so you're going to pirate it? You won't spend the $30 to buy it when it comes out, and instead of waiting a month and renting it for $2, you're going to pirate it. You are one cheap sonofabitch. It's assholes like you that encourage the MAFIAA's crap and make it so hard to get a real discussion on reform going. But thanks for fucking it up for everybody else.
"Won't matter if you're a copay or a percentage, you'll be taking that $100/dose because it's your health and you can't exactly put a price on your health."
One wouldn't have thought so, but here we are.
soooooo... Destiny vs. free will & self-determination?
It's absurd to suggest that any entity, individual or business, should be *assumed* to be breaking the law. TPTB are (allegedly) trained in applicable rules, regulations, codes and laws and file accordingly. If the state disagrees, it'll investigate and take appropriate actions.
FYI, your "Cow" example is what's known as a "Brightline falacy." What you've said is that since one can't point to the exact moment that one's individual rights were violated that it must mean that said violation never happened. This is incorrect.
Sooooo... make the license "After the fact." Boat goes out, catches what it can, comes into port for inspection, where appropriate (pro-rated) licenses are attached.
Really? It'll sell itself, will it? And yes, that is what you're claiming. Shall we starting a talley of how many great products have failed because of this idiotic mentality?
"Libertarianism, like most isms have a large umbrella to hide under."
Just like Liberalism and Conservatism. Your point would have been better made if you had specifically included that.
I consider myself to be a libertarian and, quite frankly, I find your post offensive and can see that you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
I like the idea of unions because 1) freedom of association and 2) it enables one to more readily enter into agreements with larger/more powerful employers on more even footing. What I'm not in favor of is the specific implementations seen in unions because of family experiences. Too many people exist in the union hierarchy who aren't actually part of the group that they allegedly represent. But as I said, I like the idea behind them just fine and I'm glad that they exist.
The rest of your "Insightful" post? Tripe. But I suppose it makes you feel good to pigeon-hole people you don't know, make baseless accusations and generally act like you think you're better than everyone else (or atleast those that you don't know).
I tend to think of myself as being "libertarian," though there are caveats. I'd rather let the market decide, unless the market has proven itself wholly incapable of regulating itself. I consider big business using money to change laws to their favor at the expense of private citizens to fall into that category and would hope that government would intervene on behalf of its citizens. You're right in that I'm more interested in "My freedom" over "Your freedom," (which is natural) but, again, with caveats. My freedom ends where your nose begins, as they say. When someone starts spouting off about their "Rights," the first question I ask is, "At who's expense?" If you require my participation to enable/enforce your "Rights" then it's not a right. And the reverse is also true. I don't expect (e.g., sense of entitlement) anything that requires others to act.
For the topic at hand, these chuckleheads proclaiming themselves to be "libertarians" are way off base. There's nothing in libertarian ideology that says that all things must be thought of in terms of how much money it'll make the individual. Why have a problem with someone making software free and open source? It's their right to do so. If enough people follow that path and it adversely affects Microsoft's bottom line, then I'd say that Microsoft (just an example) needs to alter its business model to acclimate to the changing times.
So you're saying that you don't think that government has a vested interest in promoting marriage? Maybe to encourage the current generation to create a new generation of tax payers? Children out of wedlock do this as well, of course, but the difference, to the government, is in the expected tax revenue generated. Just playing Devil's advocate.
I thought that we weren't supposed to give in to peer pressure?
Let's kick that horse some more...
"I could care less" means that one does care. On a scale of 1 to 10, "Could" would be a 5. "I couldn't care less" would be a 0.
Right. It's not Linux, so who the fuck cares? Right? You don't deserve a civilized a response. Get back in the shed.