It is not "the paper" that has bearing on your fredumz, silly.
It is the social contract written on the paper and accepted by the society that has a bearing. It is the acceptance of these rules by the society that gives them power, because the society invests a part of its resources into a political system that tries to enforce the rules, including the "fredumz" (and limitations) that are defined in the said contract.
Without it, your "fredumz" are limited to the strength of your muscles. Which means you have no rights when you're asleep;)
He's not interested in shooting back. He's interested in not having idiots next door who are armed to the teeth. Shooting back will not solve this problem, or the problem of the tyranny of the law that allows it.
it's there to be able to stop the government from imposing tyranny
LOL. How does that work? "Your" government has already imposed a tyranny on you. As some other liberatarian helpfully explained here, all your laws are "tyrannical", because you're not their concern and they are passed to enforce commercial interests that are not yours.
Princeton University study: Public opinion has "near-zero" impact on U.S. law. [represent.us]
Gilens & Page found that the number of Americans for or against any idea has no impact on the likelihood that congress will make it law. "The preferences of the average American appear to have only a miniscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy."
One thing that does have an influence? Money. While the opinions of the bottom 90% of income earners in America have a "statistically non-significant impact," Economic elites, business interests, and people who can afford lobbyists still carry major influence. http://scholar.princeton.edu/s... [princeton.edu]
How have guns helped you to avoid this situation? They have not. "Gun rights" are a red herring, which only gives you an illusion of protection, but actually subject you to the tyranny of a militarized police force, which you have no hope of standing up against.
The 2nd amendment is the only reason you have the right to say shit about anything
Not really, that's in the first amendment:) And the organization which actually enforces it is the government. Without a strong government and the protection of the police force, attempts to preclude free speech like the murder in Charlottesville would quickly escalate into small wars where the right will be the might.
You're so clueless as to how your country works that it defies belief.
The 2nd amendment isn't forcing people to accept something,
Yes, it is. It forced a friend of mine to put up with armed-to-the-teeth gunnut neighbors, who shot at his house twice some years ago, hurting his kid. He would much rather have a law that does not give random idiots the tools to attack him and his family from a great distance with a deadly force for no good reason, but he's out of luck. The law is such that he is oppressed by the tyranny of gun ownership, without any benefits from it for him, or for the society at large, not even academic ones.
Contrasting that to the "tyranny" of a negotiated agreement to save the planet from a real, scientifically confirmed and very grave threat to the very existence of a human civilization shows clearly that your perspective on the matter is at best selfish and ignorant.
Have a nice day, I have no more time to waste on aynrandian idiots today.
That's because the 2nd amendment is the opposite of tyranny.
Didn't you just say that forcing people to accept a law they don't like is "tyranny"? Yeah, you did, but only if it is a law you don't like. You've got a bit of a problem with what words mean, as I told you already. And you're, err, "intellectually dishonest", you don't apply your critique to your own arguments.
How about you don't sprout bullshit to me on/. but instead talk about it to your politicians about it. Then get back to me and report what did they tell you. See how far you go, eh?
Also, a nice diversion on your Paris agreement bullshit, this impotent foreign policy rant of yours. Congrats.
Maybe you should read the actual agreement before spouting bullshit, eh.
The Paris agreement is about voluntary measures to reduce CO2 to some targets, measures that every country has largely determined by itself. It is definitely not "taking money from America". Nobody is taking money from America, just the opposite, money is being pledged to go the poorer countries in America.
I don't know who "you" are, but seeing how you equate two continents with one country on one of them I can only assume you're a US citizen. If that is the case, don't you think that it is a bit disingenuous, if not outright hypocritical to get your panties in a twist about your country "meddling in other countries" on this issue given the disasters in the Middle East that your country is causing?
Get a sense of proportion for your outrage, otherwise nobody will take you seriously.
A "tyranny" is an authoritarian regime in which the power of the state is unchecked and vested into the tyrant. A democratic government with a democratic legislative process is the precise opposite of tyranny, because the outcome of this process involves the whole society, and the process is to a very large degree of negotiation, and not of coercion.
You cannot expect that every individual in a large society will agree to the precise legislative outcome, but acceptance of a democratically enacted law while disagreeing with it is something that happens all the time and is not even close to "tyranny". For example, a lot of people in the US disagree with the second amendment, but they comply with it, and I haven't heard anyone calling it "the amendment of tyranny". Maybe you'll be the first.
"You can't legislate away climate change because you can't force everyone to obey" - this is a non-sequitur. You can definitely legislate away an unpleasant side of some human activity by getting mostly everyone to agree it is bad and getting them on board to reduce it. Ozone, DDT and atmospheric nuclear weapons testing are a few examples of these. There are many, many more. The situation with CO2 is not any different. As long as a sufficient majority of the people agree on the necessary measures to curb CO2, there will be no problem legislating stuff to correct the situation, and this ain't no tyranny.
Half-assed "AI" silver bullets, done as a pretense of "caring about our users" work even less.
Zuckerberg's business is acquiring personal data, and using this to help other like himself peddle shit for money. He ain't interested in your causes, well-being, the harm someone causes you, or anything else beyond selling his service, and getting his stock up.
I'm more of a two-stage theory man, which puts me at odds with Trotsky, but I wouldn't expect a/. troll to know what's behind the words they are using, or to be able to recognize a Marxist theory by it characteristics if it is not named:)))
This is not a solution to the accumulated CO2 problem. Now, had you said "plant trees"... But then I've plant two every weekend since 1995.
This problem affects the entire planet. There is no isolating one variable here.
Judging by this completely meaningless diatribe, you're a bit on the dim side, so I'll repeat it for you: there are no realistic geoengineering proposals, and among the rest there are no geoengineering proposals that do not have significant side effects.
they would have no reason to attempt to steal all our money and bring poverty to the citizens of the USA.
You would have been spot on with this sharp and super-smart observation, if not for the small fact that The United States, Saudi Arabia and Brazil were among the strongest opponents of the proposal, with Japan also expressing reservations.
Its hard to believe that there are those that do NOT see that this movement is engineered in Moscow in order to damage their chief rival, the USA
This conspiracy theory would have been very interesting as well, except that Moscow is, as a major fossil fuels exporter, among the staunchest opponents of CO2 emissions reductions.
You're probably just as "well" informed about the other aspects of the global warming issues.
cutbacks and regulations won't do it, we've been doing those for half a century with no noticeable impact whatsoever
Oh, please, there have not been doing serious cutbacks and regulations. Where there were - like the problem with the ozone hole, cutting back on the emissions at the source of the problem up to the point of eliminating them has had a most noticeable impact.
Here the same approach would work well, except for the selfishness of those who shirk the responsibility for their contribution to it.
Nobody is stopping you from investing time and money to solve the problem. But nobody's doing that seriously, I for one, have not heard of a realistic proposal, or for one without significant side effects for that matter.
The point is, of course, to attack the weakest link first, just like in the West, the authorities dealt with the "IP theft" service providers first, because it is a lot easier, as they are public, and on their own.
What will happen is that the Russians who don't care about encryption (the majority) will move on to government-sanctioned providers who work. The ability of the rest are not a concern for the Russian government. They will either move to a more "personal" solution, which will make them easier to identify and pressure, or give up, which I presume is also fine.
Mandating information based on verifiable justification.
Mandating information because there is material, easily ascertainable difference in the origin of what you buy, you mean? Yeah, even you seem to agree with that, in abstract. Until it comes to your pet peeves:)
But mandating information just because people have unfounded fears... Next you'll tell us that manufacturers should be required to label all "gluten free" products as such
That's a good, two-paragraph strawman that is also a false analogy. Congratulations. Let me try one on my own then - gluten-free will be unnecessary unless, of course, we get to the point where gluten genes are inserted in everything green because they let it look "fresh" longer. Then we'll need "gluten-free" labeling, which today is obviously unnecessary, for everything, just because you won't know what to expect.
What happened to being able to make an informed choice?
Another strawman with selective quoting. 10 bonus points.
Wandered down the snack aisle lately? Here's an amazing fact: not even Popsicle will deny that their products contain GMO ingredients
See, that's how it is in a country where you let the cat out of the bag and lack of information removes the choice from the market. Where I live, things are a bit different, we have legal requirements for proper labeling, and it is a lot easier to pick the sweets with the GMO ingredients and HFCS. Or not to pick it. Incidentally, when friends who visit me from the US sit at our table, they can't get enough, because the food is so much better.
Regulations should be based on scientific evidence.
Not really, the regulations of the market should first and foremost reflect the preferences of the participants. That you choose to disparage such preferences as "superstition" is your value judgement, and it is just as valid as the opposite one.
But since you insist on "scientific evidence" as a basis of a regulation, let's see what is available. urns out there is plenty. First, the evidence that markets operate best when full information is available to the participants is overwhelming and incontrovertible, and therefore labeling food according to its origin and nature is not only warranted, but a very common practice. In fact, when such information is withdrawn from the public this usually results in public harm. I'm sure GMO product manufacturers are proud of their achievements and do not need to pretend their food is the same as the fish caught in the wild. In fact, by not labeling it, they make it difficult for people with preference for their product to buy it, and therefore harm their customers. Besides, this will not be an arbitrary and "superstitious" rule - there are objective, scientific tests that will immediately show the difference between a "wild" food and a GM one.
If someone wants to grow non-GMO salmon, and label it as such, they are free to do so.
There is no need to explicitly label non-GMO foods as such, since this is not a new development, practically all food that is on the market today is non-GMO and that is the default the consumer should expect. This is the traditional, long-standing grandfathering rule, which is customarily applied when new regulations become necesary.
Slashdot Mirror
paper has any bearing on your freedom
It is not "the paper" that has bearing on your fredumz, silly.
It is the social contract written on the paper and accepted by the society that has a bearing. It is the acceptance of these rules by the society that gives them power, because the society invests a part of its resources into a political system that tries to enforce the rules, including the "fredumz" (and limitations) that are defined in the said contract.
Without it, your "fredumz" are limited to the strength of your muscles. Which means you have no rights when you're asleep ;)
I would recommend shooting back next time.
He's not interested in shooting back. He's interested in not having idiots next door who are armed to the teeth. Shooting back will not solve this problem, or the problem of the tyranny of the law that allows it.
it's there to be able to stop the government from imposing tyranny
LOL. How does that work? "Your" government has already imposed a tyranny on you. As some other liberatarian helpfully explained here, all your laws are "tyrannical", because you're not their concern and they are passed to enforce commercial interests that are not yours.
Princeton University study: Public opinion has "near-zero" impact on U.S. law. [represent.us]
Gilens & Page found that the number of Americans for or against any idea has no impact on the likelihood that congress will make it law. "The preferences of the average American appear to have only a miniscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy."
One thing that does have an influence? Money. While the opinions of the bottom 90% of income earners in America have a "statistically non-significant impact," Economic elites, business interests, and people who can afford lobbyists still carry major influence. http://scholar.princeton.edu/s... [princeton.edu]
How have guns helped you to avoid this situation? They have not. "Gun rights" are a red herring, which only gives you an illusion of protection, but actually subject you to the tyranny of a militarized police force, which you have no hope of standing up against.
The 2nd amendment is the only reason you have the right to say shit about anything
Not really, that's in the first amendment :) And the organization which actually enforces it is the government. Without a strong government and the protection of the police force, attempts to preclude free speech like the murder in Charlottesville would quickly escalate into small wars where the right will be the might.
You're so clueless as to how your country works that it defies belief.
The 2nd amendment isn't forcing people to accept something,
Yes, it is. It forced a friend of mine to put up with armed-to-the-teeth gunnut neighbors, who shot at his house twice some years ago, hurting his kid. He would much rather have a law that does not give random idiots the tools to attack him and his family from a great distance with a deadly force for no good reason, but he's out of luck. The law is such that he is oppressed by the tyranny of gun ownership, without any benefits from it for him, or for the society at large, not even academic ones.
Contrasting that to the "tyranny" of a negotiated agreement to save the planet from a real, scientifically confirmed and very grave threat to the very existence of a human civilization shows clearly that your perspective on the matter is at best selfish and ignorant.
Have a nice day, I have no more time to waste on aynrandian idiots today.
Man, the Tom Clancy books are fiction. Bad, bad fiction. Get a real life, stop worrying about things that ain't gonna happen.
That's because the 2nd amendment is the opposite of tyranny.
Didn't you just say that forcing people to accept a law they don't like is "tyranny"? Yeah, you did, but only if it is a law you don't like. You've got a bit of a problem with what words mean, as I told you already. And you're, err, "intellectually dishonest", you don't apply your critique to your own arguments.
So, yeah, a typical aynrandian.
You're good on excuses, that's for sure. Well, it is a way of life, too.
How about you don't sprout bullshit to me on /. but instead talk about it to your politicians about it. Then get back to me and report what did they tell you. See how far you go, eh?
Also, a nice diversion on your Paris agreement bullshit, this impotent foreign policy rant of yours. Congrats.
Maybe you should read the actual agreement before spouting bullshit, eh.
The Paris agreement is about voluntary measures to reduce CO2 to some targets, measures that every country has largely determined by itself. It is definitely not "taking money from America". Nobody is taking money from America, just the opposite, money is being pledged to go the poorer countries in America.
I don't know who "you" are, but seeing how you equate two continents with one country on one of them I can only assume you're a US citizen. If that is the case, don't you think that it is a bit disingenuous, if not outright hypocritical to get your panties in a twist about your country "meddling in other countries" on this issue given the disasters in the Middle East that your country is causing?
Get a sense of proportion for your outrage, otherwise nobody will take you seriously.
A "tyranny" is an authoritarian regime in which the power of the state is unchecked and vested into the tyrant. A democratic government with a democratic legislative process is the precise opposite of tyranny, because the outcome of this process involves the whole society, and the process is to a very large degree of negotiation, and not of coercion.
You cannot expect that every individual in a large society will agree to the precise legislative outcome, but acceptance of a democratically enacted law while disagreeing with it is something that happens all the time and is not even close to "tyranny". For example, a lot of people in the US disagree with the second amendment, but they comply with it, and I haven't heard anyone calling it "the amendment of tyranny". Maybe you'll be the first.
"You can't legislate away climate change because you can't force everyone to obey" - this is a non-sequitur. You can definitely legislate away an unpleasant side of some human activity by getting mostly everyone to agree it is bad and getting them on board to reduce it. Ozone, DDT and atmospheric nuclear weapons testing are a few examples of these. There are many, many more. The situation with CO2 is not any different. As long as a sufficient majority of the people agree on the necessary measures to curb CO2, there will be no problem legislating stuff to correct the situation, and this ain't no tyranny.
Half-assed "AI" silver bullets, done as a pretense of "caring about our users" work even less.
Zuckerberg's business is acquiring personal data, and using this to help other like himself peddle shit for money. He ain't interested in your causes, well-being, the harm someone causes you, or anything else beyond selling his service, and getting his stock up.
The only way to win is not to play.
Capitalist enterprises from the West invested in China, and were welcomed there by Mr. Deng Xiaoping and his followers.
I'm more of a two-stage theory man, which puts me at odds with Trotsky, but I wouldn't expect a /. troll to know what's behind the words they are using, or to be able to recognize a Marxist theory by it characteristics if it is not named :)))
Consume less.
This is not a solution to the accumulated CO2 problem. Now, had you said "plant trees"... But then I've plant two every weekend since 1995.
This problem affects the entire planet. There is no isolating one variable here.
Judging by this completely meaningless diatribe, you're a bit on the dim side, so I'll repeat it for you: there are no realistic geoengineering proposals, and among the rest there are no geoengineering proposals that do not have significant side effects.
Don't use big words like "tyranny" or "immutable" if you don't know their meaning.
Tin foil? Hardly, more like a widely circulated news story, that one.
they would have no reason to attempt to steal all our money and bring poverty to the citizens of the USA.
You would have been spot on with this sharp and super-smart observation, if not for the small fact that The United States, Saudi Arabia and Brazil were among the strongest opponents of the proposal, with Japan also expressing reservations.
Its hard to believe that there are those that do NOT see that this movement is engineered in Moscow in order to damage their chief rival, the USA
This conspiracy theory would have been very interesting as well, except that Moscow is, as a major fossil fuels exporter, among the staunchest opponents of CO2 emissions reductions.
You're probably just as "well" informed about the other aspects of the global warming issues.
cutbacks and regulations won't do it, we've been doing those for half a century with no noticeable impact whatsoever
Oh, please, there have not been doing serious cutbacks and regulations. Where there were - like the problem with the ozone hole, cutting back on the emissions at the source of the problem up to the point of eliminating them has had a most noticeable impact.
Here the same approach would work well, except for the selfishness of those who shirk the responsibility for their contribution to it.
Nobody is stopping you from investing time and money to solve the problem. But nobody's doing that seriously, I for one, have not heard of a realistic proposal, or for one without significant side effects for that matter.
So, you cannot show any numbers. Thought so.
"Mooching the United States"?
How so? Please elaborate, with real numbers based on real data.
It was Putin who inserted all these commas, I swear.
The point is, of course, to attack the weakest link first, just like in the West, the authorities dealt with the "IP theft" service providers first, because it is a lot easier, as they are public, and on their own.
What will happen is that the Russians who don't care about encryption (the majority) will move on to government-sanctioned providers who work. The ability of the rest are not a concern for the Russian government. They will either move to a more "personal" solution, which will make them easier to identify and pressure, or give up, which I presume is also fine.
Mandating information based on verifiable justification.
Mandating information because there is material, easily ascertainable difference in the origin of what you buy, you mean? Yeah, even you seem to agree with that, in abstract. Until it comes to your pet peeves :)
But mandating information just because people have unfounded fears... Next you'll tell us that manufacturers should be required to label all "gluten free" products as such
That's a good, two-paragraph strawman that is also a false analogy. Congratulations. Let me try one on my own then - gluten-free will be unnecessary unless, of course, we get to the point where gluten genes are inserted in everything green because they let it look "fresh" longer. Then we'll need "gluten-free" labeling, which today is obviously unnecessary, for everything, just because you won't know what to expect.
What happened to being able to make an informed choice?
Another strawman with selective quoting. 10 bonus points.
Wandered down the snack aisle lately? Here's an amazing fact: not even Popsicle will deny that their products contain GMO ingredients
See, that's how it is in a country where you let the cat out of the bag and lack of information removes the choice from the market. Where I live, things are a bit different, we have legal requirements for proper labeling, and it is a lot easier to pick the sweets with the GMO ingredients and HFCS. Or not to pick it. Incidentally, when friends who visit me from the US sit at our table, they can't get enough, because the food is so much better.
This is what informed choice is about.
Regulations should be based on scientific evidence.
Not really, the regulations of the market should first and foremost reflect the preferences of the participants. That you choose to disparage such preferences as "superstition" is your value judgement, and it is just as valid as the opposite one.
But since you insist on "scientific evidence" as a basis of a regulation, let's see what is available. urns out there is plenty. First, the evidence that markets operate best when full information is available to the participants is overwhelming and incontrovertible, and therefore labeling food according to its origin and nature is not only warranted, but a very common practice. In fact, when such information is withdrawn from the public this usually results in public harm. I'm sure GMO product manufacturers are proud of their achievements and do not need to pretend their food is the same as the fish caught in the wild. In fact, by not labeling it, they make it difficult for people with preference for their product to buy it, and therefore harm their customers. Besides, this will not be an arbitrary and "superstitious" rule - there are objective, scientific tests that will immediately show the difference between a "wild" food and a GM one.
If someone wants to grow non-GMO salmon, and label it as such, they are free to do so.
There is no need to explicitly label non-GMO foods as such, since this is not a new development, practically all food that is on the market today is non-GMO and that is the default the consumer should expect. This is the traditional, long-standing grandfathering rule, which is customarily applied when new regulations become necesary.
Gen X is the last generation that remembers what it was to live disconnected, and when we die out, nobody will know better.