Why is there no great uproar when a private user puts misnamed files on the network?
I thought it was all part of the same complaint.
Why do we save our complaints for when the legal owners do something against the spirit of the system, rather than when someone else does something against the law?
What's even scarier, the concept of "common good", has been abandoned by the United States. I beleive this concept is expressed in the preamble of the Constitution, but nowadays it is considered communistic. It is because of this abandonment that the Supreme Court ruled as they did. Capitalism is only useful insofar as it promotes the common good.
It it very much on topic. The main post was about an evil action undertaken by the Supreme Court and this post is my reaction. Also the two responses to my post shouldn't have been. Anyways, can someone please explain what would make someone think this was off-topic. (Also someone with mod-points please mod up the other two posts and if anyone sees these posts in Meta-moderation, please meta mon those moderations unfair and also, would someone explain why if this post is off-topic why the post I responded to isn't off topic?) Note: the persons or people who moderated these posts off-topic are clearly part of some sort of Axis of evil in support of the current regime, and should be put on a 'Are not allowed to moderate' list immediately.
Either he's a coward, a fool, or buying time for producing weapons. If he buckled because he's afraid then he's a coward, if he buckled because he thought it would lead to peace, he's a fool, and the last one doesn't appear to need explanation.
I hear it's warm there, and not like Indiana where I'm stuck... Besides (Come and get me suckers) < A more in-depth talk about standing up for ethical behavior was supposed to go here but...I can't work it out.
I was... Now I'm just going to have to declare war against the current regime...but I lack resources...Hmm... Anyone need a soldier, anyone that is NOT associated with Bin Laden...Just because he is fighting the current regime, does not mean he is my friend.
Took that story long enough to wind up on slashdot.
I could have told them that what you perceive as being there is based on your previous experience as opposed to what is actually there. The data from your eyes is just far too noisy, and my brain has guessed wrong often enough that its become obvious that what I was seeing was based on previous experience. By the way, hearing works the same way. Calling it a reflex, however doesn't seem right.
No I am not contradicting myself. If I was arguing that the subjects of those in power were particularly ethical then I would be. Also you seem to be equating wealth and power. The lack of ethics of people below is the only reason these people are in power. Becasue of this their power is tenuous at best.
There's a difference between making murder illegal and resisting arrest illegal. (as well as talking back to the judge and speeding and I don't know what else... oh public intoxication perhaps. The United States is more authoritarian than it needs to be to remain a government.
"corporations are comprised of individuals"
No they are not. Corporations are owned. People are not owned in America. If corporations were comprised of the people who work for them, then there would be no need for Unions, now would there? Or were you saying they are comprised of their shareholders?
authoritarian You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Look at definition 1:
Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against personal freedom.
Now, nothing in that definition makes it illegal to say that the current leaders are terrible, just as long as you do what people in authority say. Just because the United States isn't making more ornerous rules to follow doesn't mean its not an authoritarian country. Just try using "But America is not an authoritarian country as a defense in court sometime"
If America was not an authoritarian country, it would not be illegal to resist arrest or to talk back to judges.
Slashdot Mirror
Tom Bearden has these energy sources.
a small blurb says NASA is preparing two robots for a mission to mars.
Why are we geting information about an American project from a British news source?
Why is there no great uproar when a private user puts misnamed files on the network?
I thought it was all part of the same complaint.
Why do we save our complaints for when the legal owners do something against the spirit of the system, rather than when someone else does something against the law?
Because this is an economic war.
No just send them a message: Such and such a file is bogus content.
What is the consultant expecting you to do. Knowing that helps you know what to learn. On the other hand, you may wind up just being a gofer.
I should't have someone deciding for me whether or not I need a sense of humor.
ICY is an IC controller card suitable for all Amiga models equipped with a Zorro II / III compatible bus.
Or am i just short of state of the art of Zorro... It's hard to tell these daysR
Someone else deciding for me what's good for me.
the people currently with wealth have set about to keep others from getting wealth, because it might mess up their maintaining wealth.
What's even scarier, the concept of "common good", has been abandoned by the United States. I beleive this concept is expressed in the preamble of the Constitution, but nowadays it is considered communistic. It is because of this abandonment that the Supreme Court ruled as they did. Capitalism is only useful insofar as it promotes the common good.
The Copyright bill immediately previous to that one did that.
It it very much on topic. The main post was about an evil action undertaken by the Supreme Court and this post is my reaction. Also the two responses to my post shouldn't have been. Anyways, can someone please explain what would make someone think this was off-topic. (Also someone with mod-points please mod up the other two posts and if anyone sees these posts in Meta-moderation, please meta mon those moderations unfair and also, would someone explain why if this post is off-topic why the post I responded to isn't off topic?) Note: the persons or people who moderated these posts off-topic are clearly part of some sort of Axis of evil in support of the current regime, and should be put on a 'Are not allowed to moderate' list immediately.
Either he's a coward, a fool, or buying time for producing weapons. If he buckled because he's afraid then he's a coward, if he buckled because he thought it would lead to peace, he's a fool, and the last one doesn't appear to need explanation.
I hear it's warm there, and not like Indiana where I'm stuck... Besides (Come and get me suckers) < A more in-depth talk about standing up for ethical behavior was supposed to go here but...I can't work it out.
I was... Now I'm just going to have to declare war against the current regime...but I lack resources...Hmm... Anyone need a soldier, anyone that is NOT associated with Bin Laden...Just because he is fighting the current regime, does not mean he is my friend.
If States want Federal road money there is a national speed limit they must make their state speed limit conform to, as I understand it.
Took that story long enough to wind up on slashdot.
I could have told them that what you perceive as being there is based on your previous experience as opposed to what is actually there. The data from your eyes is just far too noisy, and my brain has guessed wrong often enough that its become obvious that what I was seeing was based on previous experience. By the way, hearing works the same way. Calling it a reflex, however doesn't seem right.
Severe laws do not produce a peaceful society.
No I am not contradicting myself. If I was arguing that the subjects of those in power were particularly ethical then I would be. Also you seem to be equating wealth and power. The lack of ethics of people below is the only reason these people are in power. Becasue of this their power is tenuous at best.
If you are't ethical, then you wont have any power, and will eventually die. It is ethical behavior that brings power.
Er, what exactly did you check? They are indeed related or else there would be no point in being ethical.
There's a difference between making murder illegal and resisting arrest illegal. (as well as talking back to the judge and speeding and I don't know what else... oh public intoxication perhaps. The United States is more authoritarian than it needs to be to remain a government.
Another relevant link: "Jury Rights"
"corporations are comprised of individuals" No they are not. Corporations are owned. People are not owned in America. If corporations were comprised of the people who work for them, then there would be no need for Unions, now would there? Or were you saying they are comprised of their shareholders?
authoritarian You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means. Look at definition 1:
Characterized by or favoring absolute obedience to authority, as against personal freedom.
Now, nothing in that definition makes it illegal to say that the current leaders are terrible, just as long as you do what people in authority say. Just because the United States isn't making more ornerous rules to follow doesn't mean its not an authoritarian country. Just try using "But America is not an authoritarian country as a defense in court sometime"
If America was not an authoritarian country, it would not be illegal to resist arrest or to talk back to judges.