It's great when you get to speculate about what might happen and use it to make your opponents look bad. Let me try:
I'll bet if it were a liberal instead of a libertarian, they'd have not only found him guilty of reverse domain name hijacking, but they'd have probably shot him as well.
Wow, my speculation sounds like a way more horrible outcome than yours. Liberals must be so oppressed!
Here's the difference. It's subtle, so you might miss it.
The Republican argues that government regulation is bad, period. Therefore any new regulation championed by a Republican is HYPOCRISY.
The Democrat argues that "this piece of regulation is good." That doesn't mean that all pieces of regulation are good. That doesn't mean they automatically have to support every other piece of idiotic regulation that gets proposed, and it doesn't mean that they can't be for removing pieces of bad regulation.
The Republican world is black and white. The Democrat doesn't buy into that false dichotomy.
But whatever, keep telling yourself that it's the same thing if it makes you feel better.
Then Jobs declared that Flash was uncool and that his platform wasn't going to support it.
There's a huge difference between not supporting something and not allowing it. Therein lies the reason for the discrepancy in people's reaction to Jobs' artificial restrictions.
Fuck the shareholders. The best interests of society outweigh the importance of your retirement portfolio. If the company you invest in can't make a profit legally AND ethically, then you don't deserve to take home a goddamn cent.
The only reason the tax codes are so complex is because every time they aren't specific enough, accountants find a loophole and even though it's completely contrary to the spirit of the law, some fucking lawyer goes to court and says, "but you didn't tell us we COULDN'T do this!" Then they get off without paying taxes and new laws are created that try to close the loophole(s) that are currently being exploited. Then when new loopholes are found and exploited, apologist morons like you justify every unethical action that every rich person or corporation takes because, "the law didn't say they COULDN'T do that!"
That's just nature at work..survival, I get mine first, etc. Nothing moral or immoral about it, just a fact of life my friend. Human nature since day one.
Ahh yes, just like it's human nature to go pick dollars off the dollar tree and spend them as they see fit.
Wait, what? You say dollars don't grow on trees? You say that dollars are created by the government, and only have value because they're backed by the government that created them? Pfft. That's stupid. Next you'll try to tell me that some of those dollars need to go back into that system to help support it, so that it can continue to back them and give them value.
Idiots. The fed can print money for the government forever, it doesn't need me to give MY hard-earned dollars back. I got mine, and fuck everybody else. I'm an island who doesn't need anyone or anything.
Except the police. Those guys have to protect my dollars. And the justice system, obviously. And roads, too, because they help the police get around and help me get to my job where I earn those dollars. Maybe water and sewage as well. Also, food inspectors and regulations would be good, because who wants to get sick and die from buying tainted food? Maybe also some sort of people who vet drugs to make sure they're safe. I'm sure there are 1 or 2 other really small things that I'm forgetting. But that's it! Anybody who thinks the "government" should do any single thing beyond what I think is correct is a damned socialist out to destroy my freedom and STEAL my hard-earned dollars at GUN POINT! (well, figuratively. And I know I said the police were necessary, and that they should obviously have guns, but when they're used to force me to do something I don't like? Oppression!)
One side says that global warming exists and is manmade. They go too far and decide that your personal car and incandescent lights are solely to blame. You are selfish and should give back to society and the government for your misdeeds.
And the other side is so steeped in mythology and believing in "original sin" that they can't see past their learned helplessness to understand that this has nothing to do with individual misdeeds, and projects their own narrow world-view of guilt and sin onto their opponents' position.
Yeah, but you're forgetting the selection bias of the media who generally whole heartily believe in anthropocentric global warming. They are far less likely to put a farmer on that says that climate change might be happening but he doesn't believe humans are the cause.
Do you have any evidence to back this up? Or are you just asking us to take it on your word, the same way you clearly think climate scientists don't have any evidence of AGW and are just asking us to take their word for it?
For their part, Apple claims average ebook price went down from $7.97 to $7.34. Can you prove them wrong?
The Justice department claims that Apple is the ringmaster in an ebook price fixing case. Can you prove them wrong?
For my part, I'll trust the justice department over Apple's self-serving claims about ebook pricing. You, obviously, will side with Apple because you can't possibly be objective about your sacred cow having done something unethical. You've got post after post calling you out for being a blind Apple worshipper, yet the only one you respond to (which also does a great job of showing how wrong you are) you dismiss because it makes a "think of the children!" argument.
Oh, and for the record, fuck Amazon too, but for reasons unrelated to this.
All I hear in your last several posts is goalposts getting dragged all over the field. "Nuh uh, that's not premium. THIS is premium. Because I say so."
Ahh, yes. Sanctity of marriage when you need it, marriage != religion when you don't. It must be nice to be able to flip flop to whatever position is suitable for you in any situation.
It is my business, because at some point those kids are going to grow up and at that point they will be somewhere on the spectrum of productive/useful citizenworthless/money draining citizen.
I'd much rather have kids grow up to be able to take care of themselves, rather than having to spend my tax dollars to jail the violent, ignorant fucks that many people raise.
the dumb ones will never matter anyhow.
They do matter! They're the ones that you get to pay to support (however indirectly) for their entire useless, parasitic lives!
I don't give a shit about tax rate. Quality of life is the only measurement that matters. If I can have a high quality of life and freedom to do what I want with a 100% tax rate then by all means, take it; I don't care. Money is just a means to an end.
What exactly is the non-racist explanation for that lack of proportionality?
There are plenty.
For instance: one was with a gun; we can't go after responsible gun owners who accidentally shoot people because that will bring down the wrath of the NRA.
Insisting that race is the *only* possible explanation for this is almost as stupid as suggesting that race *couldn't* be an explanation.
but your saying the "war on drugs" is "racist" is telling me that drugs usage has a racial component, and that people of that race have a predisposition to using said drugs, based upon their race
No, that's not what he's saying. He's saying that the *prosecution* of "some" drugs has a predisposition for targeting certain demographics. You've got to be willfully ignorant at this point to not know this fact by now, and to top it off you add a nice little lie on top by constructing a strawman to attack. "nuh uh! ur the racist!" Nicely done.
Here's a hint: acknowledging statistical facts about a demographic is not the same thing as discrimination against that demographic. Creating policies that target a certain demographic's behavior while ignoring another demographic's similar (but distinct) behavior *is* discriminatory. Going after the reefer while ignoring the tobacco is purely discriminatory.
And this has fuck all to do with a race's supposed "predisposition" for using a certain drug. That's a bald-faced strawman and you know it.
Apple also apparently understands that most people hate recharging batteries, a fact that seems lost on Slashdot.
What does this sentence even mean? Did Apple invent a new battery that never runs out when I wasn't looking?
Did you mean "replacing" batteries? Because that would at least make sense, even though it's still idiotic. I don't "like" tying my shoes, but I don't hate it either. It's not like it's a big fucking deal to have to do it to make my shoes useful, and I'm not going to wear velcro or slippers and make myself look like an idiot in the process of saving myself from such a minor inconvenience.
You also completely ignore the fact that (for example) with my Galaxy S3, I don't change the battery. However, if I need to, I can. You don't get to decide what the criteria are for "needing" to. You don't get to decide why your method is so much better -- and by not doing it your way, I'm doing it wrong. You don't get to speak for anybody but yourself.
I have more options than you. Period. You're a prime example of, "there are none so enslaved as those who believe themselves to be free."
Slashdot Mirror
Every iPhone that can be jailbroken is also running around with a phone that has known vulnerabilities.
As far as I know, that means all of them.
--Jeremy
It's great when you get to speculate about what might happen and use it to make your opponents look bad. Let me try:
I'll bet if it were a liberal instead of a libertarian, they'd have not only found him guilty of reverse domain name hijacking, but they'd have probably shot him as well.
Wow, my speculation sounds like a way more horrible outcome than yours. Liberals must be so oppressed!
--Jeremy
It's easy. For dublin, the oil industry is something (s)he likes, therefore by definition it cannot be corrupted by government money.
It's some nice doublethink. Short circuits any need for logic.
--Jeremy
Here's the difference. It's subtle, so you might miss it.
The Republican argues that government regulation is bad, period. Therefore any new regulation championed by a Republican is HYPOCRISY.
The Democrat argues that "this piece of regulation is good." That doesn't mean that all pieces of regulation are good. That doesn't mean they automatically have to support every other piece of idiotic regulation that gets proposed, and it doesn't mean that they can't be for removing pieces of bad regulation.
The Republican world is black and white. The Democrat doesn't buy into that false dichotomy.
But whatever, keep telling yourself that it's the same thing if it makes you feel better.
--Jeremy
Dems pushed for loosey goosey loans to poor people who could never pay back said mortgages
If you are referring to the CRA, then you are wrong. This is a popular talking point with Republicans who have no idea what they're talking about.
--Jeremy
Then Jobs declared that Flash was uncool and that his platform wasn't going to support it.
There's a huge difference between not supporting something and not allowing it. Therein lies the reason for the discrepancy in people's reaction to Jobs' artificial restrictions.
--Jeremy
In other words: "If it was a good enough truth for some illiterate desert dwellers 2000 years ago, it's good enough truth for me!"
--Jeremy
Any liberal politician who voted for VAWA.
--Jeremy
the best interests of the shareholders
Fuck the shareholders. The best interests of society outweigh the importance of your retirement portfolio. If the company you invest in can't make a profit legally AND ethically, then you don't deserve to take home a goddamn cent.
The only reason the tax codes are so complex is because every time they aren't specific enough, accountants find a loophole and even though it's completely contrary to the spirit of the law, some fucking lawyer goes to court and says, "but you didn't tell us we COULDN'T do this!" Then they get off without paying taxes and new laws are created that try to close the loophole(s) that are currently being exploited. Then when new loopholes are found and exploited, apologist morons like you justify every unethical action that every rich person or corporation takes because, "the law didn't say they COULDN'T do that!"
--Jeremy
That's just nature at work..survival, I get mine first, etc. Nothing moral or immoral about it, just a fact of life my friend. Human nature since day one.
Ahh yes, just like it's human nature to go pick dollars off the dollar tree and spend them as they see fit.
Wait, what? You say dollars don't grow on trees? You say that dollars are created by the government, and only have value because they're backed by the government that created them? Pfft. That's stupid. Next you'll try to tell me that some of those dollars need to go back into that system to help support it, so that it can continue to back them and give them value.
Idiots. The fed can print money for the government forever, it doesn't need me to give MY hard-earned dollars back. I got mine, and fuck everybody else. I'm an island who doesn't need anyone or anything.
Except the police. Those guys have to protect my dollars. And the justice system, obviously. And roads, too, because they help the police get around and help me get to my job where I earn those dollars. Maybe water and sewage as well. Also, food inspectors and regulations would be good, because who wants to get sick and die from buying tainted food? Maybe also some sort of people who vet drugs to make sure they're safe. I'm sure there are 1 or 2 other really small things that I'm forgetting. But that's it! Anybody who thinks the "government" should do any single thing beyond what I think is correct is a damned socialist out to destroy my freedom and STEAL my hard-earned dollars at GUN POINT! (well, figuratively. And I know I said the police were necessary, and that they should obviously have guns, but when they're used to force me to do something I don't like? Oppression!)
--Jeremy
Oh fuck off you PC tool.
--Jeremy
One side says that global warming exists and is manmade. They go too far and decide that your personal car and incandescent lights are solely to blame. You are selfish and should give back to society and the government for your misdeeds.
And the other side is so steeped in mythology and believing in "original sin" that they can't see past their learned helplessness to understand that this has nothing to do with individual misdeeds, and projects their own narrow world-view of guilt and sin onto their opponents' position.
--Jeremy
Yeah, but you're forgetting the selection bias of the media who generally whole heartily believe in anthropocentric global warming. They are far less likely to put a farmer on that says that climate change might be happening but he doesn't believe humans are the cause.
Do you have any evidence to back this up? Or are you just asking us to take it on your word, the same way you clearly think climate scientists don't have any evidence of AGW and are just asking us to take their word for it?
--Jeremy
For their part, Apple claims average ebook price went down from $7.97 to $7.34. Can you prove them wrong?
The Justice department claims that Apple is the ringmaster in an ebook price fixing case. Can you prove them wrong?
For my part, I'll trust the justice department over Apple's self-serving claims about ebook pricing. You, obviously, will side with Apple because you can't possibly be objective about your sacred cow having done something unethical. You've got post after post calling you out for being a blind Apple worshipper, yet the only one you respond to (which also does a great job of showing how wrong you are) you dismiss because it makes a "think of the children!" argument.
Oh, and for the record, fuck Amazon too, but for reasons unrelated to this.
--Jeremy
I suspect that they did recognize the sarcasm because it didn't detract from the insightfulness one bit.
Get over yourself.
--Jeremy
All I hear in your last several posts is goalposts getting dragged all over the field. "Nuh uh, that's not premium. THIS is premium. Because I say so."
--Jeremy
Here you go.
Plug in a wireless adapter and park your car close enough to hotspot and sync away.
It's even rooted, so you can install whatever software you want on it.
--Jeremy
At one time in history, Republicans were the liberal party.
Yes, they have switched. What's your point?
Also, you might want to look into those liberal-law-passing states. They tend to have the highest standards of living and quality of life.
--Jeremy
Weasel word alert!
Most
Some
translation: "I can't quantify my gut suspicion, but I sure can make some sweeping generalizations that support it!"
--Jeremy
Also, marriage != religion.
Ahh, yes. Sanctity of marriage when you need it, marriage != religion when you don't. It must be nice to be able to flip flop to whatever position is suitable for you in any situation.
--Jeremy
Minding you own business isn't part of yours?
It is my business, because at some point those kids are going to grow up and at that point they will be somewhere on the spectrum of productive/useful citizenworthless/money draining citizen.
I'd much rather have kids grow up to be able to take care of themselves, rather than having to spend my tax dollars to jail the violent, ignorant fucks that many people raise.
the dumb ones will never matter anyhow.
They do matter! They're the ones that you get to pay to support (however indirectly) for their entire useless, parasitic lives!
--Jeremy
I don't give a shit about tax rate. Quality of life is the only measurement that matters. If I can have a high quality of life and freedom to do what I want with a 100% tax rate then by all means, take it; I don't care. Money is just a means to an end.
--Jeremy
What exactly is the non-racist explanation for that lack of proportionality?
There are plenty.
For instance: one was with a gun; we can't go after responsible gun owners who accidentally shoot people because that will bring down the wrath of the NRA.
Insisting that race is the *only* possible explanation for this is almost as stupid as suggesting that race *couldn't* be an explanation.
--Jeremy
but your saying the "war on drugs" is "racist" is telling me that drugs usage has a racial component, and that people of that race have a predisposition to using said drugs, based upon their race
No, that's not what he's saying. He's saying that the *prosecution* of "some" drugs has a predisposition for targeting certain demographics. You've got to be willfully ignorant at this point to not know this fact by now, and to top it off you add a nice little lie on top by constructing a strawman to attack. "nuh uh! ur the racist!" Nicely done.
Here's a hint: acknowledging statistical facts about a demographic is not the same thing as discrimination against that demographic. Creating policies that target a certain demographic's behavior while ignoring another demographic's similar (but distinct) behavior *is* discriminatory. Going after the reefer while ignoring the tobacco is purely discriminatory.
And this has fuck all to do with a race's supposed "predisposition" for using a certain drug. That's a bald-faced strawman and you know it.
--Jeremy
Apple also apparently understands that most people hate recharging batteries, a fact that seems lost on Slashdot.
What does this sentence even mean? Did Apple invent a new battery that never runs out when I wasn't looking?
Did you mean "replacing" batteries? Because that would at least make sense, even though it's still idiotic. I don't "like" tying my shoes, but I don't hate it either. It's not like it's a big fucking deal to have to do it to make my shoes useful, and I'm not going to wear velcro or slippers and make myself look like an idiot in the process of saving myself from such a minor inconvenience.
You also completely ignore the fact that (for example) with my Galaxy S3, I don't change the battery. However, if I need to, I can. You don't get to decide what the criteria are for "needing" to. You don't get to decide why your method is so much better -- and by not doing it your way, I'm doing it wrong. You don't get to speak for anybody but yourself.
I have more options than you. Period. You're a prime example of, "there are none so enslaved as those who believe themselves to be free."
--Jeremy