That is all the proof anyone needs that you are a moron.
Hitler - 6 to 10 million deaths.
Communism = 100+ million in the 20th century. (perhaps as high as 200 million)
To be sure, Hitler and the Nazis were horrible horrible people. But... on the grand scale of murder, they were fucking amateurs.
You are an idiot of you choose Communism over Fascism. They both enslave you, but one is FANTASTIC at killing people. The Nazis killed you, but the Commies starved you and everyone in your village.. Nice and slow... Lots of suffering.
For fuck's sake, Pol Pot exterminated 40% of the population of his own country.
Seriously, your statement was so stupid it boggles the mind..
You are a liberal aren't you? I ask because the level of idiocy you just displayed.... I give up..
Is Google the only goddam search engine on the planet?
Why is it always, "Google, Google, Google?" Did Momma always like Google best?
Is Bing a thing?
Google 74.52%
Baidu 10.49%
Bing 7.98%
Yahoo! 5.41%
Effectively, yes.
They started out with a superior product. Unfortunately they are beginning to act like a monopolist. I'm pretty heavily conservative, but there are times when a company gathers such a large chunk of the market that maybe free-market economics aren't enough... I hate the fact that the government might have to get involved but I don't know what the solution would be in situations like this. It's not as simple as choosing a different search engine (I've done that and it's not that the others are a little worse, they are orders of magnitude shittier.
Bing sucks.. I mean they just really suck. The search returns just aren't nearly as accurate or relevant.. Like it or hate it, the search engines (Google in particular) have become the gateways to the web (for most people, like.. 90%+ probably (this is an educated guess based on my real world observations). Maybe when companies control that much information, maybe they should be subject to 1st amendment (anti-censorship) restrictions.. I dunno...
Nonetheless, Youtube are censoring him. That's censorship.
How stupid would I have to be to not think that?
Listen moron, there is a difference between government censorship and private policies. Note that I didn't use the term private censorship. It's not possible.
If you had a guest in your house and he called your wife a "whore" and you told him to "get the fuck out and never come back". Did you "censor" him? Of course not.
In our example, the former guest is free to leave your house, stand on the sidewalk / pavement and continue to refer to your wife as a whore. He will not face jail time. He retains his ability and right to speak his mind publicly.
If the GOVERNMENT bans a type of speech and says you'll go to jail if you say these things ANYWHERE, THAT IS FUCKING CENSORSHIP.
That's not true. A business can tell somebody wearing a "MAGA" hat to get the fuck out, and the moron would have no grounds for any kind of legal action.
You people have serious lack of reading comprehension. The GP is correct. To use an example, if a dude comes walking into your store with no shirt on, and you say "No Shirt, No Service, Get the Fuck out". You are fine.
HOWEVER, if you then let another guy with no shirt walk in, and you DON'T kick him out as well, you have a serious problem on your hands. You acted unequally.
Privacy. Every asshole corp. is trying to bleed you for data they can sell.
Not their fault. Consumers are shown that said companies are fucking them and they look at you with a blank stare, walk out the door, and buy said pocket-spy-device. If a company does something and the knowledge of that action, by the public, does not negatively impact their bottom line, why in the hell would they change?
I'm tired of the government having to step in to everything because 1/2 of our population is too stupid to manage their own lives. The effect is ALWAYS that those 1/2 of us smart enough to manage our affairs are hamstrung by ever increasing regulation and laws that generally do nothing but increase the cost / complexity of EVERYTHING in our lives.
That's what's missing in tech today. We haven't caught up as a society to the tech we have. There should be no more new tech until people learn how to behave.
And just who in the hell is going to decide what constitutes good behavior? I'm pretty sure I can already guess your answer will be some variation of the "state". But regardless, your answer is moronic and flippant.
Shut industry down on a whim? Yeah... fuck those people with jobs who are currently being employed by market forces.. Let's have the government decide their industry is non-essential
Never implied it was right. I was merely stating the reality: No federal government on Earth can be sued unless it consents to be sued. For all aspects of the suit must be between facets/divisions/branches of said federal government, itself.
It's a statement of fact, not right / wrong. There is no moral implication in ANYTHING that I said.
Part of being a free country includes being able to sue the government for wrongs that government did.
You are still asking said government to consent to be sued. Nobody can FORCE them to allow this. 100% of lawsuits against any government boil down to a voluntary situation. It doesn't matter if it's codified into law. The law is enforced by the government. Thus if the government enforces the law against itself to permit you to sue it, it's still a voluntary act. You can't appeal to anyone if they refuse. There is no higher authority to appeal to. If you petition whatever version of a Supreme Court, that might be applicable in your country, it's still the government ruling against/for itself.
Y'all seem to be having a problem with this concept.
In a free country, the people have to be able to sue the government when rights are trampled and many free countries have codified this in law. For a country to repeal that right of the people would be tyranny.
It's still a version of sovereign immunity. When you sue the government, you are using one department/branch/facet of the government to rule/moderate/facilitate your lawsuit of another part of the government. Thus, in all governments that permit you to sue them, they are still consenting to allow themselves to be sued. There is no international law that would force any government to allow itself to be sued by its own citizen. All lawsuits against the government happen by consent of said government. There is no higher authority to appeal to.
More likely a smaller version of those hydraulic arms seen on the sides of garbage trucks that they use to pick up trash cans.
I have to ask... How the hell close to the street are the houses where you live? Where I'm at, I'd say the average is about 50-100 feet setback from the road. Assuming they did go the hydraulic arm route, what about places where cars are parked on the side of the road (like ALL of San Diego) and there is no straight and clear path to any house.
UPS already operates from 6 AM to 8 PM in my area; outside those hours, you're very likely to piss people off.
This!
Show up at my house at 5:00AM and you will be met by a very grumpy, and possibly armed, individual (depending on my mood).
People who have packages stolen are, in my opinion, mostly lazy. There are all sorts of ways to secure your deliveries. I, for example, have a large, locking, metal box secured to my porch. The box has an unlocked padlock on it. When a delivery is made, the UPS/FedEx guy puts the package in the box, closes the lid, and locks the lock. When I get home, if the box is closed, I know I have a delivery (I probably already know thanks to packagetracker, but sometimes I forget). Takes 10 seconds to pull out my keys and open the box. Have NEVER had anything stolen. The effort to detach the box from the porch would attract the attention of neighbors plus you're probably, statistically, stealing something stupid like new socks. I don't order high end electronics on a daily basis).
This is such a b.s., protectionist, argument. When cars were invented a lot of people slowly lost their jobs. Farriers, blacksmiths, buggy mechanics, whip makers, etc...
Either you adapt or you die. This is how the world has worked for all of history. Human or otherwise.
The GP is spot on. I DON'T want to spend my time standing in lines, looking for parking, trying to remember where-the-fuck-I-parked, and dealing with insane shoppers (black Friday...).
My time is valuable to me. It might not be valuable to anyone else, but it is to me.
Your idea that I owe small business anything smacks of communism and liberalism. Don't misunderstand me, I am aware that small business is the backbone of America, but I don't OWE said businesses anything. NOTHING AT ALL.
Now, with that said, there are plenty of small businesses that I do frequent. Generally the stores that have friendly staff or act as social hubs. Restaurants, theatres, the grocery store (I want to inspect the stuff I plan to ingest)......
But for my day to day shopping, f-you and your lines, your crowds, and your inconvenience. If you have a job at said establishment and you CANNOT retrain or LEARN to do something else, then die (metaphorically)..
I'm tired of this attitude that everyone needs to be carried and babied. Specialists are woefully unprepared when things change. They might enjoy a time of massive bounty but when the climate changes they are the first to go extinct.
I think he should be able to sue the National party and all members who were involved at the time.
It was their decision to allow what happened.
The rest of the government and the taxpayers of New Zealand should have no liability.
Apart from that, I still don't understand why they haven't just pushed him onto a plane and sent him off to meet with the FBI or whoever.
Are you mental? You are asking for a break in the chain of responsibility every time you have an election? Would all contracts signed with the previous government also become invalid?
You do realize that under your moronic idea, your entire government would probably collapse right? How could ANYONE have any confidence in a government that could absolve itself of any/all responsibility for it's own actions every time an election took place and there was a change of power?
Well, that was a stupid statement. ALL GOVERNMENTS have sovereign immunity. ANY time you sue your government you are asking it to permit itself to be sued. If it refused, what the fuck could you do? Petition another government? Doesn't work like that. Some governments may have codified the absolute right to sue them, but the government itself passed the law and presumably could revoke said law any time it felt so inclined.
Actually it is. You can only sue when the government permits you to sue. The Supreme Court codified the idea of Sovereign Immunity quite a while ago. However, in practice, the government does permit itself to be sued quite often.
If one thinks about it, Sovereign Immunity does make a bit of sense. You are suing the government in a government court. The court being a part of the government itself. You are effectively asking one branch of government to forcibly modify the behavior of another, coequal, branch.
I'd liken it to, when you were a kid, and you had a gripe/complaint about your parents. You'd have to petition your parents for a change of rules or procedures. They would, of course, have to agree to hear your complaint in the first place. Then, if you were successful, they would have to agree to modify their behavior or change some rules, etc..
If they decided, at the outset, that they didn't like your complaint, that was it.... game over.
Isn't there an equivalent of sovereign immunity in New Zealand? If I understand correctly, the sovereign immunity doctrine at least in the US would bar such a suit against the government. Sovereign immunity is the concept that a sovereign cannot be sued for damages except in cases where it has waived the immunity (for example, by having a law stating that it is responsible for damages in certain types of cases, usually with an upper limit).
You are correct. But.... the US Federal Government permits itself to be sued all of the time. About the only time you can't sue the government is if you cannot show standing (the idea that YOU personally have been affected) or if the Fed's trot out the old "National Security" bullshit (which happens more often than people probably realize).
Their debt levels are not insane, but are rather normal. As of 2016, their state revenues were 155 billion a year, their state debt was 151 billion.
Are you on drugs? CA's (where I live) debt is FOUR HUNDRED BILLION. Where the fuck did you get $155 BN?
Per capita debt has reached over $10,000.00
Total state debt (state / county / local / etc) is ESTIMATED at $1.3 TRILLION (as of 2015). This number is relevant because the state is ultimately responsible for it. When a city goes insolvent the parent county must absorb it. When a county goes insolvent (hasn't happened yet, but it's coming) the state will have to absorb it. That's going to be awful interesting when it actually happens.
If you don't consider $400B/$1.3T excessive, I'd like some of whatever you are smoking.
Honestly, I suspect you are one of those fucking liberals who just pulls numbers out of their ass, like old MoonBeam and his "estimates" on the bullet train which have turned out to be nowhere even in the vicinity of reality.
I took a few minutes to actually look up the figures from some reputable sources.
By the way, that $400BN number comes from that liberal rag the SF Chronicle so you can't even accuse it of political bias. Unfunded liabilities are DEBT. If you contractually promise someone a pension you MUST provide that pension, doesn't matter if the money has to be paid out today or in 10 years, it MUST be accounted for.
You must not have purchased a truck in the last decade. Top trim packages are hitting $90k.
Well, that is now, officially, the dumbest shit I've read in the last year. Having the ability to buy a truck does not mean that one needs to purchase the very most expensive model.
I suppose if someone buys a car they must be buying a Ferrari?
A brand new 2017 TOYOTA TUNDRA CREW MAX 4X4 is a hair under $40,000. That's less than half of your asinine example.
It's quite clear that you lack the ability to read or comprehend. They aren't messing with the fucking thermostats. They are saying that if they throttle you, there might not be enough bandwidth left over to remotely operate your thermostat.
This article is FUCKING CLICK BAIT.
So sick of this shit. I predict by 2019 I won't be reading Slashdot anymore.
Slashdot Mirror
Hitler - 6 to 10 million deaths.
Communism = 100+ million in the 20th century. (perhaps as high as 200 million)
To be sure, Hitler and the Nazis were horrible horrible people. But... on the grand scale of murder, they were fucking amateurs.
You are an idiot of you choose Communism over Fascism. They both enslave you, but one is FANTASTIC at killing people. The Nazis killed you, but the Commies starved you and everyone in your village.. Nice and slow... Lots of suffering.
For fuck's sake, Pol Pot exterminated 40% of the population of his own country.
Seriously, your statement was so stupid it boggles the mind..
You are a liberal aren't you? I ask because the level of idiocy you just displayed.... I give up..
Is Google the only goddam search engine on the planet?
Why is it always, "Google, Google, Google?" Did Momma always like Google best?
Is Bing a thing?
Google 74.52%
Baidu 10.49%
Bing 7.98%
Yahoo! 5.41%
Effectively, yes.
They started out with a superior product. Unfortunately they are beginning to act like a monopolist. I'm pretty heavily conservative, but there are times when a company gathers such a large chunk of the market that maybe free-market economics aren't enough... I hate the fact that the government might have to get involved but I don't know what the solution would be in situations like this. It's not as simple as choosing a different search engine (I've done that and it's not that the others are a little worse, they are orders of magnitude shittier.
Bing sucks.. I mean they just really suck. The search returns just aren't nearly as accurate or relevant.. Like it or hate it, the search engines (Google in particular) have become the gateways to the web (for most people, like.. 90%+ probably (this is an educated guess based on my real world observations). Maybe when companies control that much information, maybe they should be subject to 1st amendment (anti-censorship) restrictions.. I dunno...
Awesome... A whole 16GB.. You'll be able to punch through your entire month's allotment in about 8 minutes.
There is no mechanism in YourTube to block a channel.
LIAR. Turn off autoplay.. Click on what you want to see. Simple as that.
Nonetheless, Youtube are censoring him. That's censorship.
How stupid would I have to be to not think that?
Listen moron, there is a difference between government censorship and private policies. Note that I didn't use the term private censorship. It's not possible.
If you had a guest in your house and he called your wife a "whore" and you told him to "get the fuck out and never come back". Did you "censor" him? Of course not.
In our example, the former guest is free to leave your house, stand on the sidewalk / pavement and continue to refer to your wife as a whore. He will not face jail time. He retains his ability and right to speak his mind publicly.
If the GOVERNMENT bans a type of speech and says you'll go to jail if you say these things ANYWHERE, THAT IS FUCKING CENSORSHIP.
That's not true. A business can tell somebody wearing a "MAGA" hat to get the fuck out, and the moron would have no grounds for any kind of legal action.
You people have serious lack of reading comprehension. The GP is correct. To use an example, if a dude comes walking into your store with no shirt on, and you say "No Shirt, No Service, Get the Fuck out". You are fine.
HOWEVER, if you then let another guy with no shirt walk in, and you DON'T kick him out as well, you have a serious problem on your hands. You acted unequally.
Correct, we'd ban him if he tried.
That's why you are a cunt.
Privacy. Every asshole corp. is trying to bleed you for data they can sell.
Not their fault. Consumers are shown that said companies are fucking them and they look at you with a blank stare, walk out the door, and buy said pocket-spy-device. If a company does something and the knowledge of that action, by the public, does not negatively impact their bottom line, why in the hell would they change?
I'm tired of the government having to step in to everything because 1/2 of our population is too stupid to manage their own lives. The effect is ALWAYS that those 1/2 of us smart enough to manage our affairs are hamstrung by ever increasing regulation and laws that generally do nothing but increase the cost / complexity of EVERYTHING in our lives.
FUCK STUPID PEOPLE. And FUCK SHEEPLE
That's what's missing in tech today. We haven't caught up as a society to the tech we have. There should be no more new tech until people learn how to behave.
And just who in the hell is going to decide what constitutes good behavior? I'm pretty sure I can already guess your answer will be some variation of the "state". But regardless, your answer is moronic and flippant.
Shut industry down on a whim? Yeah... fuck those people with jobs who are currently being employed by market forces.. Let's have the government decide their industry is non-essential
Never implied it was right. I was merely stating the reality: No federal government on Earth can be sued unless it consents to be sued. For all aspects of the suit must be between facets/divisions/branches of said federal government, itself.
It's a statement of fact, not right / wrong. There is no moral implication in ANYTHING that I said.
Part of being a free country includes being able to sue the government for wrongs that government did.
You are still asking said government to consent to be sued. Nobody can FORCE them to allow this. 100% of lawsuits against any government boil down to a voluntary situation. It doesn't matter if it's codified into law. The law is enforced by the government. Thus if the government enforces the law against itself to permit you to sue it, it's still a voluntary act. You can't appeal to anyone if they refuse. There is no higher authority to appeal to. If you petition whatever version of a Supreme Court, that might be applicable in your country, it's still the government ruling against/for itself. Y'all seem to be having a problem with this concept.
In a free country, the people have to be able to sue the government when rights are trampled and many free countries have codified this in law. For a country to repeal that right of the people would be tyranny.
It's still a version of sovereign immunity. When you sue the government, you are using one department/branch/facet of the government to rule/moderate/facilitate your lawsuit of another part of the government. Thus, in all governments that permit you to sue them, they are still consenting to allow themselves to be sued. There is no international law that would force any government to allow itself to be sued by its own citizen. All lawsuits against the government happen by consent of said government. There is no higher authority to appeal to.
More likely a smaller version of those hydraulic arms seen on the sides of garbage trucks that they use to pick up trash cans.
I have to ask... How the hell close to the street are the houses where you live? Where I'm at, I'd say the average is about 50-100 feet setback from the road. Assuming they did go the hydraulic arm route, what about places where cars are parked on the side of the road (like ALL of San Diego) and there is no straight and clear path to any house.
UPS already operates from 6 AM to 8 PM in my area; outside those hours, you're very likely to piss people off.
This!
Show up at my house at 5:00AM and you will be met by a very grumpy, and possibly armed, individual (depending on my mood).
People who have packages stolen are, in my opinion, mostly lazy. There are all sorts of ways to secure your deliveries. I, for example, have a large, locking, metal box secured to my porch. The box has an unlocked padlock on it. When a delivery is made, the UPS/FedEx guy puts the package in the box, closes the lid, and locks the lock. When I get home, if the box is closed, I know I have a delivery (I probably already know thanks to packagetracker, but sometimes I forget). Takes 10 seconds to pull out my keys and open the box. Have NEVER had anything stolen. The effort to detach the box from the porch would attract the attention of neighbors plus you're probably, statistically, stealing something stupid like new socks. I don't order high end electronics on a daily basis).
This is such a b.s., protectionist, argument. When cars were invented a lot of people slowly lost their jobs. Farriers, blacksmiths, buggy mechanics, whip makers, etc...
Either you adapt or you die. This is how the world has worked for all of history. Human or otherwise.
The GP is spot on. I DON'T want to spend my time standing in lines, looking for parking, trying to remember where-the-fuck-I-parked, and dealing with insane shoppers (black Friday...).
My time is valuable to me. It might not be valuable to anyone else, but it is to me.
Your idea that I owe small business anything smacks of communism and liberalism. Don't misunderstand me, I am aware that small business is the backbone of America, but I don't OWE said businesses anything. NOTHING AT ALL.
Now, with that said, there are plenty of small businesses that I do frequent. Generally the stores that have friendly staff or act as social hubs. Restaurants, theatres, the grocery store (I want to inspect the stuff I plan to ingest)......
But for my day to day shopping, f-you and your lines, your crowds, and your inconvenience. If you have a job at said establishment and you CANNOT retrain or LEARN to do something else, then die (metaphorically)..
I'm tired of this attitude that everyone needs to be carried and babied. Specialists are woefully unprepared when things change. They might enjoy a time of massive bounty but when the climate changes they are the first to go extinct.
I think he should be able to sue the National party and all members who were involved at the time. It was their decision to allow what happened. The rest of the government and the taxpayers of New Zealand should have no liability. Apart from that, I still don't understand why they haven't just pushed him onto a plane and sent him off to meet with the FBI or whoever.
Are you mental? You are asking for a break in the chain of responsibility every time you have an election? Would all contracts signed with the previous government also become invalid?
You do realize that under your moronic idea, your entire government would probably collapse right? How could ANYONE have any confidence in a government that could absolve itself of any/all responsibility for it's own actions every time an election took place and there was a change of power?
IANAL, but Wikipedia says that sovereign immunity generally applies to immunity from foreign national courts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
I see here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... that it is different in the US. Yet another reason not to live there
Well, that was a stupid statement. ALL GOVERNMENTS have sovereign immunity. ANY time you sue your government you are asking it to permit itself to be sued. If it refused, what the fuck could you do? Petition another government? Doesn't work like that. Some governments may have codified the absolute right to sue them, but the government itself passed the law and presumably could revoke said law any time it felt so inclined.
Sovereign immunity isn't absolute.
Actually it is. You can only sue when the government permits you to sue. The Supreme Court codified the idea of Sovereign Immunity quite a while ago. However, in practice, the government does permit itself to be sued quite often.
If one thinks about it, Sovereign Immunity does make a bit of sense. You are suing the government in a government court. The court being a part of the government itself. You are effectively asking one branch of government to forcibly modify the behavior of another, coequal, branch.
I'd liken it to, when you were a kid, and you had a gripe/complaint about your parents. You'd have to petition your parents for a change of rules or procedures. They would, of course, have to agree to hear your complaint in the first place. Then, if you were successful, they would have to agree to modify their behavior or change some rules, etc..
If they decided, at the outset, that they didn't like your complaint, that was it.... game over.
Isn't there an equivalent of sovereign immunity in New Zealand? If I understand correctly, the sovereign immunity doctrine at least in the US would bar such a suit against the government. Sovereign immunity is the concept that a sovereign cannot be sued for damages except in cases where it has waived the immunity (for example, by having a law stating that it is responsible for damages in certain types of cases, usually with an upper limit).
You are correct. But.... the US Federal Government permits itself to be sued all of the time. About the only time you can't sue the government is if you cannot show standing (the idea that YOU personally have been affected) or if the Fed's trot out the old "National Security" bullshit (which happens more often than people probably realize).
Their debt levels are not insane, but are rather normal. As of 2016, their state revenues were 155 billion a year, their state debt was 151 billion.
Are you on drugs? CA's (where I live) debt is FOUR HUNDRED BILLION. Where the fuck did you get $155 BN?
Per capita debt has reached over $10,000.00
Total state debt (state / county / local / etc) is ESTIMATED at $1.3 TRILLION (as of 2015). This number is relevant because the state is ultimately responsible for it. When a city goes insolvent the parent county must absorb it. When a county goes insolvent (hasn't happened yet, but it's coming) the state will have to absorb it. That's going to be awful interesting when it actually happens.
If you don't consider $400B/$1.3T excessive, I'd like some of whatever you are smoking.
Honestly, I suspect you are one of those fucking liberals who just pulls numbers out of their ass, like old MoonBeam and his "estimates" on the bullet train which have turned out to be nowhere even in the vicinity of reality.
I took a few minutes to actually look up the figures from some reputable sources.
By the way, that $400BN number comes from that liberal rag the SF Chronicle so you can't even accuse it of political bias. Unfunded liabilities are DEBT. If you contractually promise someone a pension you MUST provide that pension, doesn't matter if the money has to be paid out today or in 10 years, it MUST be accounted for.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/...
Have never seen anyone else who was with me on this one. Glad to learn there is at least one.
Correction.. 5 fucking times..
Are you trying to spell CHARGED?
I'd not point out the misspelling but, for fuck's sake, you did it 4 times....
You must not have purchased a truck in the last decade. Top trim packages are hitting $90k.
Well, that is now, officially, the dumbest shit I've read in the last year. Having the ability to buy a truck does not mean that one needs to purchase the very most expensive model.
I suppose if someone buys a car they must be buying a Ferrari?
A brand new 2017 TOYOTA TUNDRA CREW MAX 4X4 is a hair under $40,000. That's less than half of your asinine example.
It's quite clear that you lack the ability to read or comprehend. They aren't messing with the fucking thermostats. They are saying that if they throttle you, there might not be enough bandwidth left over to remotely operate your thermostat. This article is FUCKING CLICK BAIT. So sick of this shit. I predict by 2019 I won't be reading Slashdot anymore.