Oh, so the personal computer explosion of the 90's wasn't related to windows at all? Are you an idiot? Windows (an OS I hate) absolutely gets at least some credit.. Nobody is saying it's an awesome OS or that they invented anything.. But they wrapped it all together, sold it pre-loaded on PCs, and the rest is history.
They are considered quite harmful to humanity though. Given that they are intentionally trying to forever grow exponentially, consuming everything in their path, and make themselves more and more valuable,... which means the part of the cake that is our own wealth/income, gets smaller and smaller.
And that's why you are a fucking moron. Wealth isn't a finite pie/cake asshole. New wealth is constantly created.. Want simple proof? Go dig up some gold.. Boom, you've just added wealth to the system. Take a chunk of wood and carve it into something beautiful.. Sell it to the guy who just dug up gold.. Increase in GDP.
I seriously wonder how you mouth breathing assholes can figure out how to use a computer but don't understand simple fucking economics.. New wealth is constantly being created.. Someone can get rich without ANYONE getting poor.
Says the planet. Just you're not listening. You think all this stuff is mere coincidence? What is the global impact of 7000 people versus 7 billion? Only we're closer to 8 billion now. And growing...
The problem IS NOT that there are too many of us. The problem is mismanagement of resources. Mismanagement of waste.. Mismanagement of a lot of things.
We aren't killing the planet. We are killing our ability to live on this planet. When we're gone, she'll recover.. Nevertheless, we can't hold a fucking candle to the destruction nature wreaks.. 99%.. NINETY NINE PERCENT of all species that have ever lived are gone.. And they were gone long before we crawled out of the fucking trees. My point is that yeah, we could be doing better, but regardless of if we're here or not, the extinctions will continue. We help some along, no doubt.. But we are not responsible for the vast majority.
With proper management of resources we could probably double our population. (not that I'm in favor of that, I'm just sayin').
But you want to bitch at someone? Go bitch to the 3rd world. If it wasn't for immigration, the population of the US would be shrinking. We're already at 1.9 children per couple. That's less than replacement (2.0). Most of the first world is roughly in the same situation. Japan is the lowest at 1.6 (if memory serves). Asia and Africa are the two continents most responsible for population growth right now. South America is leveling off.
You'll probably find that anybody who's got more than a couple of million to their name, probably stepped on a lot of necks to get their wealth. Being a psychopath is almost mandatory in that line of business. You have to not care at all about the suffering and toil of others.
Sorry guy, but really you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. He's not going to be outsourced to China. Tech support... stuff like that sure.. But only a complete and utter fucking moron would ship their source code to China. It'll be stolen in 5 seconds..
Just because one asshole in Austin is doing it doesn't mean shit. China STEALS.. This is a known fact.. Their theft is either state sponsored or state approved. You don't ship anything secret to that shit hole of a country.
Programming (as others have pointed out) is a low unemployment industry that generally pays good wages. You want laws that protect your IP? Your only real choices are countries in the first world.
How the fuck did we end up with the FBI (for example)? The constitution gives absolutely no police powers to the federal government.
We have the FBI because we NEEDED it. We needed a central Federal law enforcement agency. But as an aside there have been federal marshals long before there was an FBI.
Don't give me the rationale for it, give me the legal argument for how the FBI can exist when it's in conflict with the 10th amendment..
Child, the legal argument doesn't matter. It really doesn't. We needed an FBI so we have one.
Then you amend the constitution. Did we do that? No. Our federal government just decided to ignore the fact. You're the child. Children don't understand rules and why you either obey them or you have chaos.
The US is not a confederacy. Why should say a gay man in California be able to marry and one in Georgia not? Because that's what you're basically advocating. "States Rights".... if we had what you want, Jim crow would still be a thing. We are Americans first. You want a confederacy? Get out. Leave. You don't belong here. We fought a war over that, so get out. Go to some kleptocratic shithole where a "great man" like yourself isn't restricted by SJW's or government or whatever collectivist boogeyman you see. Except you'll have to deal with the mobsters who ARE the government who will kill you if you get in their way.
No, you listen you cunt, I want a CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT. That's what I want. I'm also aware that power corrupts.. You assholes rail about giant corporations and then extol the virtues of giant governments..
We haven't had a decade yet, in this country, where the constitution was actually obeyed. We have a central government that grows larger and larger and larger.
You talk about rights... You talk about Jim Crow.. THE FEDERAL FUCKING GOVERNMENT POISONED AND KILLED 20,000 AMERICAN CITIZENS FOR DRINKING ALCOHOL DURING PROHIBITION. The Supreme Court upheld SLAVERY.
Yeah, cocksucker.. It was the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT that legitimized it.. It was the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT that forced FREE STATES to send runaway slaves BACK to SLAVE STATES.
More than 1/2 of the states in this union were FREE. But your precious CENTRAL GOVERNMENT forced them to support slavery (return of slaves) against their will and against their morals. Slavery is EVIL and IMMORAL.
The senate was supposed to represent the interests of the states that CREATED the federal government out of thin air. Immediately after the revolution we had 13 SOVEREIGN NATIONS. They banded together, gave up some autonomy, and formed a bond.. Stronger together than apart... The Senate was supposed to have the states interests at heart.. Senators were APPOINTED by the states.. The House was elected by the People.. Both were represented.. The states and the people.. Equally..
The Fed was designed to be WEAK, but with some very specific powers.. Common defense.. Interstate trade... International Relations... etc.
None of that was challenged or decided by the Civil War as you imply. The ONLY thing the civil war was about was keeping the union together. Lincoln hated slavery but was unwilling to go to war over it. He figured it would fade on its own. He was probably right. The emancipation of the slaves was a fucking afterthought. Your precious central government only gave 2 shits about the slaves when it became clear the North had won.. They didn't care two fucks before that.
What the fuck? I'm talking about our CURRENT constitution. Amendment 10 is crystal clear.. If the federal government wasn't given the power, it doesn't have the power. Any powers not given to the feds are reserved to the states or the people....
That list of powers is surprisingly small..
Besides national defense and interstate commerce (and a handful of other powers - treaties, etc) what does the fed really bring to the table that the states can't handle on an individual basis?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
How the fuck did we end up with the FBI (for example)? The constitution gives absolutely no police powers to the federal government. Don't give me the rationale for it, give me the legal argument for how the FBI can exist when it's in conflict with the 10th amendment..
Entropy increases.. And yeah, it is inevitable that governments get worse.. When has a government ever gotten better on its own? (short of revolution or war)
you're falling into the trap of doing the same anti-government all-government-is-collectivism shit that the usual alt-right/randroid suspects do.
Right.. It's not like we have a shitload of evidence (along with hundreds of millions of bodies) that strong central governments are a bad idea.. Who's the bigger idiot? The nutjob who is anti-government or the nutjob who thinks that governments spun out of control can only happen to "other governments"?
I want a WEAK central government.. One that is tasked with a select list of things to do.. Like... Maybe... Regulate interstate commerce, common defense... stuff like that..
Everything that wasn't implicitly listed was supposed to belong to the states or the people. Then, if you don't like how some asshole is running a state, you can drive an hour and live in a state that is less assholish.
The only thing worse than neckbeards is assholes who want strong central governments.. But hey, you're smarter than Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, etc..
Besides, you can't run countries with millions of people like some tiny village with a few selectmen, you need strong central governments because too many are working cross-purposes and causing harm to the nation as a whole.
My argument to that would be to make the countries smaller. Strong central governments are not the solution to anything.. Well, they can be the FINAL solution.. if you catch my drift..
I agree that backdoors via either side aren't good. But I'd argue that China having a backdoor into your network is far worse. Why? Economic and Industrial espionage. The US Gov't isn't really in the business of spying for industrial espionage purposes. Yes, it has happened in the past and I suspect it will happen in the future, but China is HEAVILY involved. That's one of the pitfalls of state owned businesses. There is a serious incentive for their government to blur the lines between national spying and competitive spying.
Unless you are some business with strong national security implications the odds that the US Government is going to spy on you to steal your latest wifi design is... unlikely. China has a much stronger incentive to spy on you for purposes like that..
You have got to be kidding.... We've lost.. what? 20,000 people over the last century to "domestic terrorism"? You morons elect leaders that slaughter you by the TENS OF MILLIONS and you're really going to criticize us?
Fuck off... Seriously.. Glass houses and all that jazz.
Right, because weighing less on take off (no fuel) is somehow worse.. You want to minimize wear and tear on landing.. Not on takeoff AND landing.
idiot.
It's incredibly ironic that the right seems to think that government can do no good and that corporations can do no harm..
WHAT THE FUCK?
Republicans, as a party, have always been anti-trust (anti monopoly). The Sherman Anti-Trust Act was signed into law by a Republican president. I don't dispute that Democrats are anti-trust as well, but to imply that Republicans don't think corporations can become evil is fucking laughable.
Republican platform, 1900 (William McKinley v. William Jennings Bryan):
“we condemn all conspiracies and combinations intended to restrict business, to create monopolies, to limit production. or to control prices; and favor such legislation as will effectively restrain and prevent all such abuses, protect and promote competition and secure the rights of producers, laborers, and all who are engaged in industry and commerce.”
Republican platform, 1940 (Wendell L. Willkie v. Franklin D. Roosevelt):
“Since the passage of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act by the Republican party we have consistently fought to preserve free competition with regulation to prevent abuse. New Deal policy fosters Government monopoly, restricts production, and fixes prices. We shall enforce anti-trust legislation without prejudice or discrimination. We condemn the use or threatened use of criminal indictments to obtain through consent decrees objectives not contemplated by law.”
Republican platform, 1972 (Richard Nixon v. George McGovern):
“We will press on for greater competition in our economy. The energetic antitrust program of the past four years demonstrates our commitment to free competition as our basic policy. The Antitrust Division has moved decisively to invalidate those “conglomerate” mergers which stifle competition and discourage economic concentration.”
Republican platform, 1976 (Jimmy Carter v. Gerald Ford):
“The Republican Party believes in and endorses the concept that the American economy is traditionally dependent upon fair competition in the marketplace. To assure fair competition, antitrust laws must treat all segments of the economy equally.”
Republican platform, 1980 (Ronald Reagan v. Jimmy Carter):
“All working men and women of America have much to gain from economic growth and a healthy business environment. It enhances their bargaining position by fostering competition among potential employers to provide more attractive working conditions, better retirement and health benefits, higher wages and salaries, and generally improving job security.”
Republicans generally are in favor of becoming rich / wealthy. Hard to do that if you can't even get your business off the ground because of crippling regulations and/or some fucking monopoly.
So yeah, they mistrust government AND abusive corporations.
By the way, it was that ASSHOLE Bill Clinton that removed all the limits on media ownership in this country and handed our radio/tv stations to just a handful of corporations. That wasn't Republicans...
That's about the worst possible monopoly you could have... The very industry that's supposed to keep an eye on government (the press) is controlled by just 3 or 4 companies that have the ability to deliver to 99% of Americans (broadcast radio and broadcast tv)..
Yes, nothing says "the left" like a corporate billionaire.
Eyeroll.
Are you serious? Some of the most vocal lefties have HUGE fortunes. Most are in the entertainment industry or the tech industry.. or politics.
Bloomberg: $58 billion... That guy is about as left as you can get, short of being a commie.
Hillary Clinton: $110 million
Jay Robert Pritzker governor of Illinois: $3.2 billion
Edward M. Lamont Jr., Connecticut governor: $300 million
John Kerry: $200 million
Al Gore: $100 million
As I suspected. You're either a thief or you support thievery, but you don't have the balls to just outright steal something. Of course you stole. You used deceit to steal. You have some serious issues you need to work out. I'm not being glib; you aren't correct in the head.
On the other hand, If you gave the cashier a coupon which tricks the register into prompting
for an unintended amount to pay,........... you stole nothing.....
And once again, the courts disagree with your fucked up logic. Here in the US using a fake barcode, deliberately, is a crime and you will be convicted.
This article is from about a year ago (https://www.opposingviews.com/category/woman-accused-swapping-barcodes-and-paying-less-electronics)
A Florida woman has been arrested after police say she switched barcodes on items at Walmart, allowing her to pay $3.70 for electronics worth more than $1,800.
Cheyenne Amber West, 25, was charged with felony grand theft and felony shoplifting, according to the TC Palm.
You're a scumbag devoid of normal morals. I suspect you disagree and that's not unsurprising. Most sociopaths think they're normal. And yes, you fit the definition of a sociopath:
Untruthfulness and insincerity
Lack of remorse and shame
Inadequately motivated antisocial behavior (stealing to eat is one thing, stealing just to steal is another)
Pathologic egocentricity (you place yourself above the person you are stealing from on your scale of "worthiness".)
One could also make the assumption your interpersonal relationships are shit or nonexistant. How can you empathize with a partner when you don't actually give a shit about anyone but yourself?
Right... Would you argue that a shoplifter isn't guilty because the store didn't have adequate security, or because the items weren't chained to the shelves?
Common sense.. The app was meant to be used by people visiting the store. Regardless of whether the Japanese system charged him with fraud or not, it is FRAUD.
What the fuck? Why do y'all have such a hard time with the concept of Fraud?
It doesn't matter what the goddamn EULA says.. The man misrepresented the facts. His actions were deliberately designed to defraud the company of items of value. He claimed, by affirmation or implication, that he was visiting these stores. He wasn't.
Fraud
A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.
Well, I'd define the Sun's gravity well as the total reach of the bending of space-time by the Sun where it is the dominant force. I'm not a astrophysicist, but that definition does seem to jive with my understanding of the various scientific definitions I've read.
All six objects I mentioned are traveling faster than the solar escape velocity, and thus the Sun's gravitational influence is no longer sufficient to slow any of them enough to pull them into a solar orbit.
They hit those velocities well before they passed the orbits of the outer planets. For the Voyager probes, the last planet to offer gravitational acceleration was Saturn. Thus they had hit Solar Escape Velocity before they passed the orbits of Uranus and Neptune. I suspect we both agree that Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, and Charon are all orbitally locked to the sun by virtue of its gravity. In fact all the probes are still being slowed by the Sun. It's still tugging at them. Thus I fail to see what the correlation of the speed of the probes in regards to them still being under the direct influence of the Sun's gravity. If they're within the orbit of objects that are locked to the Sun by gravity, I'd argue they are still within the gravity well of the Sun.
Gravity doesn't just stop at a given distance, so deceleration from the Sun's gravity will continue to become smaller and smaller until they encounter something that has a greater gravitational influence than the Sun at that distance. In 20,000 years or so when Voyager 1 reaches a distance of a light-year from the Sun, it'll still be the dominant gravitational influence on the spacecraft.
But will it? The reach of gravity might be nearly infinite, although at smaller and smaller levels of influence the further you away an object is, but at some point some other object becomes the dominate gravitational source in an area. We know the Kuiper Belt objects are bound to Sol by gravity.. i.e. they can't just fly off and escape without some source of external stimuli (passing rogue planet/star/body). So, I'd argue they are well within the Sun's gravity well.
Personally, I would not have said the objects are outside of the Sun's gravity well. Astronomers don't say that. They've described the Voyagers as having passed the Heliopause.. I don't think this was accidental. i.e. I believe they use the correct term deliberately.
If you stopped an objects motion, relative to the Sun, at a given distance will the object begin to fall towards the Sun or a different object? Personally that's where I'd draw the line, as a layman. If the object falls toward something else, then I'd say it's no longer in the Sun's gravity well.
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, so the personal computer explosion of the 90's wasn't related to windows at all? Are you an idiot? Windows (an OS I hate) absolutely gets at least some credit.. Nobody is saying it's an awesome OS or that they invented anything.. But they wrapped it all together, sold it pre-loaded on PCs, and the rest is history.
They are considered quite harmful to humanity though. Given that they are intentionally trying to forever grow exponentially, consuming everything in their path, and make themselves more and more valuable, ... which means the part of the cake that is our own wealth/income, gets smaller and smaller.
And that's why you are a fucking moron. Wealth isn't a finite pie/cake asshole. New wealth is constantly created.. Want simple proof? Go dig up some gold.. Boom, you've just added wealth to the system. Take a chunk of wood and carve it into something beautiful.. Sell it to the guy who just dug up gold.. Increase in GDP.
I seriously wonder how you mouth breathing assholes can figure out how to use a computer but don't understand simple fucking economics.. New wealth is constantly being created.. Someone can get rich without ANYONE getting poor.
Says who?
Says the planet. Just you're not listening. You think all this stuff is mere coincidence? What is the global impact of 7000 people versus 7 billion? Only we're closer to 8 billion now. And growing...
The problem IS NOT that there are too many of us. The problem is mismanagement of resources. Mismanagement of waste.. Mismanagement of a lot of things.
We aren't killing the planet. We are killing our ability to live on this planet. When we're gone, she'll recover.. Nevertheless, we can't hold a fucking candle to the destruction nature wreaks.. 99%.. NINETY NINE PERCENT of all species that have ever lived are gone.. And they were gone long before we crawled out of the fucking trees. My point is that yeah, we could be doing better, but regardless of if we're here or not, the extinctions will continue. We help some along, no doubt.. But we are not responsible for the vast majority.
With proper management of resources we could probably double our population. (not that I'm in favor of that, I'm just sayin').
But you want to bitch at someone? Go bitch to the 3rd world. If it wasn't for immigration, the population of the US would be shrinking. We're already at 1.9 children per couple. That's less than replacement (2.0). Most of the first world is roughly in the same situation. Japan is the lowest at 1.6 (if memory serves). Asia and Africa are the two continents most responsible for population growth right now. South America is leveling off.
You'll probably find that anybody who's got more than a couple of million to their name, probably stepped on a lot of necks to get their wealth. Being a psychopath is almost mandatory in that line of business. You have to not care at all about the suffering and toil of others.
spot the liberal in 3..2...1
Did somebody hurt your Feelz? Bad bad man! FEELZ!
Sorry guy, but really you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. He's not going to be outsourced to China. Tech support... stuff like that sure.. But only a complete and utter fucking moron would ship their source code to China. It'll be stolen in 5 seconds..
Just because one asshole in Austin is doing it doesn't mean shit. China STEALS.. This is a known fact.. Their theft is either state sponsored or state approved. You don't ship anything secret to that shit hole of a country.
Programming (as others have pointed out) is a low unemployment industry that generally pays good wages. You want laws that protect your IP? Your only real choices are countries in the first world.
Your anti-government bias is blinding you to reality.
Pot Kettle Black
How the fuck did we end up with the FBI (for example)? The constitution gives absolutely no police powers to the federal government.
We have the FBI because we NEEDED it. We needed a central Federal law enforcement agency. But as an aside there have been federal marshals long before there was an FBI.
Don't give me the rationale for it, give me the legal argument for how the FBI can exist when it's in conflict with the 10th amendment..
Child, the legal argument doesn't matter. It really doesn't. We needed an FBI so we have one.
Then you amend the constitution. Did we do that? No. Our federal government just decided to ignore the fact. You're the child. Children don't understand rules and why you either obey them or you have chaos.
The US is not a confederacy. Why should say a gay man in California be able to marry and one in Georgia not? Because that's what you're basically advocating. "States Rights".... if we had what you want, Jim crow would still be a thing. We are Americans first. You want a confederacy? Get out. Leave. You don't belong here. We fought a war over that, so get out. Go to some kleptocratic shithole where a "great man" like yourself isn't restricted by SJW's or government or whatever collectivist boogeyman you see. Except you'll have to deal with the mobsters who ARE the government who will kill you if you get in their way.
No, you listen you cunt, I want a CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT. That's what I want. I'm also aware that power corrupts.. You assholes rail about giant corporations and then extol the virtues of giant governments..
We haven't had a decade yet, in this country, where the constitution was actually obeyed. We have a central government that grows larger and larger and larger.
You talk about rights... You talk about Jim Crow.. THE FEDERAL FUCKING GOVERNMENT POISONED AND KILLED 20,000 AMERICAN CITIZENS FOR DRINKING ALCOHOL DURING PROHIBITION. The Supreme Court upheld SLAVERY.
Yeah, cocksucker.. It was the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT that legitimized it.. It was the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT that forced FREE STATES to send runaway slaves BACK to SLAVE STATES.
More than 1/2 of the states in this union were FREE. But your precious CENTRAL GOVERNMENT forced them to support slavery (return of slaves) against their will and against their morals. Slavery is EVIL and IMMORAL.
The senate was supposed to represent the interests of the states that CREATED the federal government out of thin air. Immediately after the revolution we had 13 SOVEREIGN NATIONS. They banded together, gave up some autonomy, and formed a bond.. Stronger together than apart... The Senate was supposed to have the states interests at heart.. Senators were APPOINTED by the states.. The House was elected by the People.. Both were represented.. The states and the people.. Equally..
The Fed was designed to be WEAK, but with some very specific powers.. Common defense.. Interstate trade... International Relations... etc.
None of that was challenged or decided by the Civil War as you imply. The ONLY thing the civil war was about was keeping the union together. Lincoln hated slavery but was unwilling to go to war over it. He figured it would fade on its own. He was probably right. The emancipation of the slaves was a fucking afterthought. Your precious central government only gave 2 shits about the slaves when it became clear the North had won.. They didn't care two fucks before that.
Articles of Confederation...it didn't work.
What the fuck? I'm talking about our CURRENT constitution. Amendment 10 is crystal clear.. If the federal government wasn't given the power, it doesn't have the power. Any powers not given to the feds are reserved to the states or the people....
That list of powers is surprisingly small..
Besides national defense and interstate commerce (and a handful of other powers - treaties, etc) what does the fed really bring to the table that the states can't handle on an individual basis?
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
How the fuck did we end up with the FBI (for example)? The constitution gives absolutely no police powers to the federal government. Don't give me the rationale for it, give me the legal argument for how the FBI can exist when it's in conflict with the 10th amendment..
Entropy increases.. And yeah, it is inevitable that governments get worse.. When has a government ever gotten better on its own? (short of revolution or war)
you're falling into the trap of doing the same anti-government all-government-is-collectivism shit that the usual alt-right/randroid suspects do.
Right.. It's not like we have a shitload of evidence (along with hundreds of millions of bodies) that strong central governments are a bad idea.. Who's the bigger idiot? The nutjob who is anti-government or the nutjob who thinks that governments spun out of control can only happen to "other governments"?
I want a WEAK central government.. One that is tasked with a select list of things to do.. Like... Maybe... Regulate interstate commerce, common defense... stuff like that..
Everything that wasn't implicitly listed was supposed to belong to the states or the people. Then, if you don't like how some asshole is running a state, you can drive an hour and live in a state that is less assholish.
The only thing worse than neckbeards is assholes who want strong central governments.. But hey, you're smarter than Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, etc..
Besides, you can't run countries with millions of people like some tiny village with a few selectmen, you need strong central governments because too many are working cross-purposes and causing harm to the nation as a whole.
My argument to that would be to make the countries smaller. Strong central governments are not the solution to anything.. Well, they can be the FINAL solution.. if you catch my drift..
Bloat doesn't just affect software.....
There are too many humans on the planet anyway.
Says who? I notice you aren't doing your part to reduce the population because you are still breathing.
It's always the same with you liberals... Someone else needs to do it.. (and this is said only mildly tongue-in-cheek)
I agree that backdoors via either side aren't good. But I'd argue that China having a backdoor into your network is far worse. Why? Economic and Industrial espionage. The US Gov't isn't really in the business of spying for industrial espionage purposes. Yes, it has happened in the past and I suspect it will happen in the future, but China is HEAVILY involved. That's one of the pitfalls of state owned businesses. There is a serious incentive for their government to blur the lines between national spying and competitive spying.
Unless you are some business with strong national security implications the odds that the US Government is going to spy on you to steal your latest wifi design is... unlikely. China has a much stronger incentive to spy on you for purposes like that..
You have got to be kidding.... We've lost.. what? 20,000 people over the last century to "domestic terrorism"? You morons elect leaders that slaughter you by the TENS OF MILLIONS and you're really going to criticize us?
Fuck off... Seriously.. Glass houses and all that jazz.
Right, because weighing less on take off (no fuel) is somehow worse.. You want to minimize wear and tear on landing.. Not on takeoff AND landing. idiot.
Yeah no. The left squabbles over how to best impose their will on everyone else.
The right squabbles over what kind of ammo to use when you try it.
I love that... Made my day. Thanks! Couldn't agree more.
It's incredibly ironic that the right seems to think that government can do no good and that corporations can do no harm..
WHAT THE FUCK? Republicans, as a party, have always been anti-trust (anti monopoly). The Sherman Anti-Trust Act was signed into law by a Republican president. I don't dispute that Democrats are anti-trust as well, but to imply that Republicans don't think corporations can become evil is fucking laughable.
Republican platform, 1900 (William McKinley v. William Jennings Bryan):
“we condemn all conspiracies and combinations intended to restrict business, to create monopolies, to limit production. or to control prices; and favor such legislation as will effectively restrain and prevent all such abuses, protect and promote competition and secure the rights of producers, laborers, and all who are engaged in industry and commerce.”
Republican platform, 1940 (Wendell L. Willkie v. Franklin D. Roosevelt):
“Since the passage of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act by the Republican party we have consistently fought to preserve free competition with regulation to prevent abuse. New Deal policy fosters Government monopoly, restricts production, and fixes prices. We shall enforce anti-trust legislation without prejudice or discrimination. We condemn the use or threatened use of criminal indictments to obtain through consent decrees objectives not contemplated by law.”
Republican platform, 1972 (Richard Nixon v. George McGovern):
“We will press on for greater competition in our economy. The energetic antitrust program of the past four years demonstrates our commitment to free competition as our basic policy. The Antitrust Division has moved decisively to invalidate those “conglomerate” mergers which stifle competition and discourage economic concentration.”
Republican platform, 1976 (Jimmy Carter v. Gerald Ford):
“The Republican Party believes in and endorses the concept that the American economy is traditionally dependent upon fair competition in the marketplace. To assure fair competition, antitrust laws must treat all segments of the economy equally.”
Republican platform, 1980 (Ronald Reagan v. Jimmy Carter):
“All working men and women of America have much to gain from economic growth and a healthy business environment. It enhances their bargaining position by fostering competition among potential employers to provide more attractive working conditions, better retirement and health benefits, higher wages and salaries, and generally improving job security.”
Republicans generally are in favor of becoming rich / wealthy. Hard to do that if you can't even get your business off the ground because of crippling regulations and/or some fucking monopoly.
So yeah, they mistrust government AND abusive corporations.
By the way, it was that ASSHOLE Bill Clinton that removed all the limits on media ownership in this country and handed our radio/tv stations to just a handful of corporations. That wasn't Republicans... That's about the worst possible monopoly you could have... The very industry that's supposed to keep an eye on government (the press) is controlled by just 3 or 4 companies that have the ability to deliver to 99% of Americans (broadcast radio and broadcast tv)..
Yes, nothing says "the left" like a corporate billionaire.
Eyeroll.
Are you serious? Some of the most vocal lefties have HUGE fortunes. Most are in the entertainment industry or the tech industry.. or politics.
Bloomberg: $58 billion... That guy is about as left as you can get, short of being a commie.
Hillary Clinton: $110 million
Jay Robert Pritzker governor of Illinois: $3.2 billion
Edward M. Lamont Jr., Connecticut governor: $300 million
John Kerry: $200 million
Al Gore: $100 million
That is by no means an exhaustive list.
As I suspected. You're either a thief or you support thievery, but you don't have the balls to just outright steal something. Of course you stole. You used deceit to steal. You have some serious issues you need to work out. I'm not being glib; you aren't correct in the head.
On the other hand, If you gave the cashier a coupon which tricks the register into prompting for an unintended amount to pay, ........... you stole nothing.....
And once again, the courts disagree with your fucked up logic. Here in the US using a fake barcode, deliberately, is a crime and you will be convicted.
This article is from about a year ago (https://www.opposingviews.com/category/woman-accused-swapping-barcodes-and-paying-less-electronics)
A Florida woman has been arrested after police say she switched barcodes on items at Walmart, allowing her to pay $3.70 for electronics worth more than $1,800.
Cheyenne Amber West, 25, was charged with felony grand theft and felony shoplifting, according to the TC Palm.
You're a scumbag devoid of normal morals. I suspect you disagree and that's not unsurprising. Most sociopaths think they're normal. And yes, you fit the definition of a sociopath:
Untruthfulness and insincerity
Lack of remorse and shame
Inadequately motivated antisocial behavior (stealing to eat is one thing, stealing just to steal is another)
Pathologic egocentricity (you place yourself above the person you are stealing from on your scale of "worthiness".)
One could also make the assumption your interpersonal relationships are shit or nonexistant. How can you empathize with a partner when you don't actually give a shit about anyone but yourself?
Right... Would you argue that a shoplifter isn't guilty because the store didn't have adequate security, or because the items weren't chained to the shelves?
Common sense.. The app was meant to be used by people visiting the store. Regardless of whether the Japanese system charged him with fraud or not, it is FRAUD.
If you don't understand that, you're an a-hole.
Good luck with that line of arguments in the court room. I suspect the Japanese courts are going to be even less swayed by that logic.
You're a lawyer aren't you?
Fraud
A false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.
What defines "out of the Sun's gravity well"?
Well, I'd define the Sun's gravity well as the total reach of the bending of space-time by the Sun where it is the dominant force. I'm not a astrophysicist, but that definition does seem to jive with my understanding of the various scientific definitions I've read.
All six objects I mentioned are traveling faster than the solar escape velocity, and thus the Sun's gravitational influence is no longer sufficient to slow any of them enough to pull them into a solar orbit.
They hit those velocities well before they passed the orbits of the outer planets. For the Voyager probes, the last planet to offer gravitational acceleration was Saturn. Thus they had hit Solar Escape Velocity before they passed the orbits of Uranus and Neptune. I suspect we both agree that Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, and Charon are all orbitally locked to the sun by virtue of its gravity. In fact all the probes are still being slowed by the Sun. It's still tugging at them. Thus I fail to see what the correlation of the speed of the probes in regards to them still being under the direct influence of the Sun's gravity. If they're within the orbit of objects that are locked to the Sun by gravity, I'd argue they are still within the gravity well of the Sun.
Gravity doesn't just stop at a given distance, so deceleration from the Sun's gravity will continue to become smaller and smaller until they encounter something that has a greater gravitational influence than the Sun at that distance. In 20,000 years or so when Voyager 1 reaches a distance of a light-year from the Sun, it'll still be the dominant gravitational influence on the spacecraft.
But will it? The reach of gravity might be nearly infinite, although at smaller and smaller levels of influence the further you away an object is, but at some point some other object becomes the dominate gravitational source in an area. We know the Kuiper Belt objects are bound to Sol by gravity.. i.e. they can't just fly off and escape without some source of external stimuli (passing rogue planet/star/body). So, I'd argue they are well within the Sun's gravity well.
Personally, I would not have said the objects are outside of the Sun's gravity well. Astronomers don't say that. They've described the Voyagers as having passed the Heliopause.. I don't think this was accidental. i.e. I believe they use the correct term deliberately.
If you stopped an objects motion, relative to the Sun, at a given distance will the object begin to fall towards the Sun or a different object? Personally that's where I'd draw the line, as a layman. If the object falls toward something else, then I'd say it's no longer in the Sun's gravity well.