This was my thought exactly. How did he not buy up all of the relevant domain names when he started his campaign (newtgingrich.com, newtgingrichsucks.com, newtgingrichblows.com, etc.)? That's just being smart! Not much of a candidate for the new millennium is he?
This is especially true because once things get so bad that the military is called out, they wouldn't be fighting "the people", they'd be fighting "terrorists" and "dissidents". Labels can be a powerful influence on perception. Look at the present, even. Once someone is called a terrorist no one cares about his rights anymore.
You are proposing the government is a quantum waveform that is simultaniously a hyper-competent entity and someone who would try playing hot potato with a live hand grenade.
Considering how large the US government is, and how many moving parts it has, being simultaneously both of those things is entirely possible.
Ah, yes. Throw out that "conspiracy theory" label, and shut it all down. The US government has provided no proof, other than its own statements, that it killed bin Laden last May. The US government is known to have lied in the past to manage people's perception. I'd say asking for actual proof falls under being dutifully skeptical.
The ultimate example would be Bin Laden. Here is a man who is skilled in guerrilla warfare, knowledgeable in intelligence and counterintelligence, protected by zealous followers, hidden in a foreign country, cut off from the outside world, using only a contact chain for any kind of communication. However the US found him, and killed him.
Though I agree with your overall point, I find it interesting that there is no evidence of the US having killed bin Laden last May other than the US government's statements to that effect. I know about the DNA testing and all that. But the fact remains that official statements are all the proof we will get.
IT is at the point of plumbers, HVAC, car repair and so on. In where only so much can be learned in class room and only so much theory can get the skills needed to the most common work and 4 years is to long for a starting point even 2 years pure class room is pushing it.
As an in-the-trenches Systems Admin, I agree with this. I have often thought recently that I am like an electrician, or HVAC repairman.
I love the way people blame the War on Drugs for all of the related problems.
If people would, you know, just stop buying the damn stuff then the cartel's main income would dry up within a month, compared to the years to decades it'll take to convince the USA and other nations to legalise the stuff.
Well, that would be simple, now wouldn't it? I take it you have no vices? If we arbitrarily made your favorite food illegal, I assume you would just stop eating it and be happy with that outcome.
Really though, the reason the War on Drugs is blamed is that it is what causes the violence and crime. If drugs were legal, the black market for them would cease to exist, or at least become a shadow of its former self. It is that black market, and the risks it entails, that causes the crime, not the drugs themselves. Alcohol prohibition should have taught us this, but we are slow learners it seems.
If you want to take drugs that's fine, it's your choice. But it's also your choice to give the money to the people who commit these crimes. Are the thrills really worth that, or do the users just not give a damn what they're doing to the Mexican people so long as they have their fun?
Again, it is not the user who causes the crime and violence. It is the behavior necessitated by the illegality. The ones who do not care about the suffering of the Mexican people are the Mexican and US governments. For it is they who keep the laws in place that cause the violence, corruption and crime. If they would allow a free and fair market to exist, we wouldn't have the trouble we have.
Or, we could just try your solution. It seems much more simple, right? All we need to do is stop millions of people from doing something they like to do. How hard could it be?
So how come the approbation over the students who may or may not have been breaking a law, but none over the police who quite definitely were?
Quite simply because it is about authoritarianism, not about applying principles consistently. They don't care about the rule of law, they care that authority is not being submitted to. But I assume you know that. Good points, good post.
You have to love the hypocrisy.
Everyone on slashdot LOATHES corporations, presuming that anyone trying to turn a profit in groups of more than 3 people must be horrible monsters and parasites.
But legal meth labs? It's GAME ON... because it only makes sense.
It blows my mind.
If you think that's an accurate description of Slashdot, it's no surprise your mind is blown.
I don't have a particular scenario in mind. But I am concerned that this type on information could be used to track or identify me if I were to ever find myself in the position of resisting the government. Law enforcement of various flavors have a history of spying on and disrupting legitimate political protest. Political, environmental, and civil rights activists have been spied on, harassed and even killed by law enforcement trying to preserve the status quo. And now that being labeled a Terrorist gets you blown up by flying killer robots or kidnapped off the street (no evidence, no trial, just BOOM), the stakes are even higher.
Basically, I don't trust the government or law enforcement to work in my true best interest. I expect them to work in their own best interest, quite narrowly defined. Therefore, I don't trust them with information about me so I try to limit it. Am I paranoid? You bet I am. 10 years ago, I wasn't. But the world has changed around me in some disturbing ways, and few people around me seem to understand what's happening.
In other words, let's say that you don't have a FB account, yet somehow still manage to find out about a party. Is it still possible for FB to learn of your attendance at said party and your amusing (yet seemingly private) actions at said party? Yes, because anybody at the party can post a photo of you at the party to FB and put your name on it.
This is correct, and I don't understand (ok, well I sorta do) why more people don't consider this a problem. At a time when employers, law enforcement, intelligence agencies and ex-girlfriends are combing Facebook, etc. looking for wrongdoing, I value my privacy more than ever. I don't have a problem with my picture happening to show up on someone's website. What I don't like is all the linking, tagging, archiving and connecting. I don't feel a need to help someone build a profile of me and my life for their own purposes.
I realized a second thing: "Free market" also seems to mean "100% completely free". But that would mean freedom from all laws too, wouldn't it? How is this different from the law of the jungle and the right of the strongest then? And how is this not the opposite of democracy, where everybody has equal rights?
(I wonder if they just would call democracy "socialism" then, for trying to make things equal...)
Well, who do you think promotes such a belief? The rich and powerful of course! The ones who think they'd be at the top of any socio-economic food chain. And yes, a completely free market would be quite opposed to democracy. But again, look who is promoting the idea. The rulers always want the rabble to have as little influence as possible.
No? Where does the money come from that they are using to buy said assets? I suggest you take a basic course in economics.
It comes from the tip of a pen, of course! Well, these days it comes from strokes on a keyboard, but the concept is the same. They take your asset and add a corresponding value to your bank account; no government debt involved.
Slashdot Mirror
This was my thought exactly. How did he not buy up all of the relevant domain names when he started his campaign (newtgingrich.com, newtgingrichsucks.com, newtgingrichblows.com, etc.)? That's just being smart! Not much of a candidate for the new millennium is he?
Vonnegut's overrated.
I will not have you blaspheme in my presence! Good magazine suggestions though.
This is especially true because once things get so bad that the military is called out, they wouldn't be fighting "the people", they'd be fighting "terrorists" and "dissidents". Labels can be a powerful influence on perception. Look at the present, even. Once someone is called a terrorist no one cares about his rights anymore.
Define... "good"
I'll go with "matches expected or desired outcome".
You are proposing the government is a quantum waveform that is simultaniously a hyper-competent entity and someone who would try playing hot potato with a live hand grenade.
Considering how large the US government is, and how many moving parts it has, being simultaneously both of those things is entirely possible.
Ah, yes. Throw out that "conspiracy theory" label, and shut it all down. The US government has provided no proof, other than its own statements, that it killed bin Laden last May. The US government is known to have lied in the past to manage people's perception. I'd say asking for actual proof falls under being dutifully skeptical.
The ultimate example would be Bin Laden. Here is a man who is skilled in guerrilla warfare, knowledgeable in intelligence and counterintelligence, protected by zealous followers, hidden in a foreign country, cut off from the outside world, using only a contact chain for any kind of communication. However the US found him, and killed him.
Though I agree with your overall point, I find it interesting that there is no evidence of the US having killed bin Laden last May other than the US government's statements to that effect. I know about the DNA testing and all that. But the fact remains that official statements are all the proof we will get.
In case you care, this page will show you how to linkify a word: http://www.w3schools.com/tags/att_a_href.asp Enjoy!
Yes, thank you. I wish more people understood this. You get many more through an intersection if the lead left-turner pulls into the intersection.
IT is at the point of plumbers, HVAC, car repair and so on. In where only so much can be learned in class room and only so much theory can get the skills needed to the most common work and 4 years is to long for a starting point even 2 years pure class room is pushing it.
As an in-the-trenches Systems Admin, I agree with this. I have often thought recently that I am like an electrician, or HVAC repairman.
It's the same thing that drives everything else in government these days; money and power.
That sounds about right to me. Who was this former politician?
I love the way people blame the War on Drugs for all of the related problems.
If people would, you know, just stop buying the damn stuff then the cartel's main income would dry up within a month, compared to the years to decades it'll take to convince the USA and other nations to legalise the stuff.
Well, that would be simple, now wouldn't it? I take it you have no vices? If we arbitrarily made your favorite food illegal, I assume you would just stop eating it and be happy with that outcome.
Really though, the reason the War on Drugs is blamed is that it is what causes the violence and crime. If drugs were legal, the black market for them would cease to exist, or at least become a shadow of its former self. It is that black market, and the risks it entails, that causes the crime, not the drugs themselves. Alcohol prohibition should have taught us this, but we are slow learners it seems.
If you want to take drugs that's fine, it's your choice. But it's also your choice to give the money to the people who commit these crimes. Are the thrills really worth that, or do the users just not give a damn what they're doing to the Mexican people so long as they have their fun?
Again, it is not the user who causes the crime and violence. It is the behavior necessitated by the illegality. The ones who do not care about the suffering of the Mexican people are the Mexican and US governments. For it is they who keep the laws in place that cause the violence, corruption and crime. If they would allow a free and fair market to exist, we wouldn't have the trouble we have.
Or, we could just try your solution. It seems much more simple, right? All we need to do is stop millions of people from doing something they like to do. How hard could it be?
I'm not your guy, pal
Oh, and "Thanks" for the ad-hominem. My day wasn't complete, without someone lowering the level of discourse, as you just have.
You do realize who you were responding to, don't you?
It's really impossible to say what would have happened had Ghandi not come onto the scene, don't you think?
So how come the approbation over the students who may or may not have been breaking a law, but none over the police who quite definitely were?
Quite simply because it is about authoritarianism, not about applying principles consistently. They don't care about the rule of law, they care that authority is not being submitted to. But I assume you know that. Good points, good post.
draw your attention away from who the real enemies are.
Congress?
I'd go with the .001%, but there are many to choose from.
You have to love the hypocrisy. Everyone on slashdot LOATHES corporations, presuming that anyone trying to turn a profit in groups of more than 3 people must be horrible monsters and parasites. But legal meth labs? It's GAME ON... because it only makes sense. It blows my mind.
If you think that's an accurate description of Slashdot, it's no surprise your mind is blown.
No, but we would seem to have nicer things.
I don't have a particular scenario in mind. But I am concerned that this type on information could be used to track or identify me if I were to ever find myself in the position of resisting the government. Law enforcement of various flavors have a history of spying on and disrupting legitimate political protest. Political, environmental, and civil rights activists have been spied on, harassed and even killed by law enforcement trying to preserve the status quo. And now that being labeled a Terrorist gets you blown up by flying killer robots or kidnapped off the street (no evidence, no trial, just BOOM), the stakes are even higher.
Basically, I don't trust the government or law enforcement to work in my true best interest. I expect them to work in their own best interest, quite narrowly defined. Therefore, I don't trust them with information about me so I try to limit it. Am I paranoid? You bet I am. 10 years ago, I wasn't. But the world has changed around me in some disturbing ways, and few people around me seem to understand what's happening.
In other words, let's say that you don't have a FB account, yet somehow still manage to find out about a party. Is it still possible for FB to learn of your attendance at said party and your amusing (yet seemingly private) actions at said party? Yes, because anybody at the party can post a photo of you at the party to FB and put your name on it.
This is correct, and I don't understand (ok, well I sorta do) why more people don't consider this a problem. At a time when employers, law enforcement, intelligence agencies and ex-girlfriends are combing Facebook, etc. looking for wrongdoing, I value my privacy more than ever. I don't have a problem with my picture happening to show up on someone's website. What I don't like is all the linking, tagging, archiving and connecting. I don't feel a need to help someone build a profile of me and my life for their own purposes.
I realized a second thing: "Free market" also seems to mean "100% completely free". But that would mean freedom from all laws too, wouldn't it? How is this different from the law of the jungle and the right of the strongest then? And how is this not the opposite of democracy, where everybody has equal rights? (I wonder if they just would call democracy "socialism" then, for trying to make things equal...)
Well, who do you think promotes such a belief? The rich and powerful of course! The ones who think they'd be at the top of any socio-economic food chain. And yes, a completely free market would be quite opposed to democracy. But again, look who is promoting the idea. The rulers always want the rabble to have as little influence as possible.
What? Drugs are way cheaper than lawyers.
No? Where does the money come from that they are using to buy said assets? I suggest you take a basic course in economics.
It comes from the tip of a pen, of course! Well, these days it comes from strokes on a keyboard, but the concept is the same. They take your asset and add a corresponding value to your bank account; no government debt involved.