Making the claim that senators ought to be appointed by the state, then running for office by popular election (into a state where he'd just carpetbagged his way over to) is hypocritical. For a man who makes such a point of ethical and moral standards, that hypocrisy certainly does make him look bad, or at least to the non-ideologically distorted.
And who's the Great Tyrant you refer to? I can only think of a great man named Lincoln who righteously smashed the confederates. Would that he'd let Grant burn more of the cities and scorch more of the earth, perhaps we'd have fewer ignorant southerners today.;)
Yeah, also there's the fact that he was running for the Senate, despite advocating for appointment of senators by state legislatures (which presumably means he's advocating the repeal of the 17th amendment).
I don't think Keyes is that great a public speaker, but I can't decide if it's cause he's objectively not that great, or if it's the fact that some of the shit he says comes of as totally insane/dishonest and it predisposes me against him.
Well duh. It's cheaper and easier, and there's far less chance of getting caught, and you can do it in such a way as to hide who's dropping off the information and who's collecting it.
This is just about getting people to buckle under to arbitrary authority.
What happened to reasonable search and seizure again? And don't gimmie the bullshit about this being the border, and thus completely outside the scope of normal legal protections. It's one thing to look for smuggled goods or potentially disease carrying goods, etc. But nothing you can carry on a laptop can't just be transmitted past customs over the internet. There's no actual reason to search peoples electronics at the border.
It's just as possible. For some reason, though, the internet is the one that scares content providers. Maybe it's the democratic nature of the web, as you point out, but I suspect a lot of it's just illogical fear.
It's not vague, it simply cuts through all the crap.
It is vague, and your answer does nothing to clarify. You said:
Obama would like absolute government control of services arbitrarily deemed as necessary (in order to buy votes).
Unpack that. Which services? Or just all of them? Is this based on specific statements he's made?
I don't live in your head, and so I don't have the welter of ideas you've apparently got about political candidates that would allow your intellectual shorthand to have meaning to me.
I have yet to meet someone that says, "I just left company X, no I don't have anything from my old job..." or " I cant fix that, I fixed that at company Y and they own the IP to that fix."
Really? Cause if I were being asked that by a new employer, that's exactly what I'd say. It would very likely be a lie, but I wouldn't cop to it because 1) it might make them paranoid about me, and 2) they paid me for my skills, not for stealing shit from elsewhere.
Most of the code I have from previous workplaces is completely useless, too. Some of it's just too old to be useful (though they're some very well written FoxPro for Unix apps), most of it just doesn't fit my current job and will be useless when I get a new one, and a few choice bits are so astoundingly shitty, I just keep around to amuse myself periodically (KenM, I'm talking about your evil abortion).
That's not true. He actually lost four planes, but only crashed three. One was lost as the result of the Forrestal disaster (which he was fortunate to escape). There was an incident where he took down some power lines, but that wasn't a crash.
Also, if you think being a POW for 5 years doesn't make you a suitable candidate for being president, then what do you think does? Knowing something about policy? Thinking about issues? Not being a short tempered hothead?
Of course, that's what happens when you let a bunch of people ideologically dedicated to the proposition that government can't do anything right have control over the government.
It appears you're drawing an incorrect inference from a post on Slashdot; do you want to: - fail at making a clever response - try re-reading and understanding the rather obvious interpretation
I was asking why that's possible. One would think they'd be able to shuttle data off the detectors without directly connecting them or exposing their control systems to the internet. I'm not discounting that there's a legitimate reason for that wasn't done, which is why I cleverly made the title of my post in the form of a question I wanted answered : "why is that even possible?"
You're welcome to disagree, in the same way that you're welcome to argue that the moon is actually composed of a green hued dairy product. Your disagreement, however, lacks foundation in empirical fact, as your moon-cheese assertion would.
Please note that this statement is not intended to denigrate the supporters of Ron Paul, per se. While I personally think paultards are a bunch of naive twits, that's a comparatively minor sin and not the general thrust of my comment. Rather, what I'm saying is that, in fact, paultards are a very minor force in American politics, at best, and will likely remain so for the remainder of Paul's political career/lifespan.
Well, you're entitled to your opinion. Personally, I'm not willing to give up everything I gain from a government in exchange for putative complete and total freedom you talk about.
Specifically, I'm not willing to give up my current state of being relatively free from having any random person be able to attack and kill me on the street without fear of repercussions. Or the protections we have that people who practice medicine, for example, are actually trained in their field, or that companies can't dump poisonous chemicals willy nilly into the environment, or a host of other responsibilities that government currently handles.
I don't want to live in an anarchy, mostly because I don't trust most people to behave responsibly. And, while we're calling spades spades, it's completely naive to think that the abolition of government will lead to the abolition of power - it'll merely shift it to those who can presently provide the greatest coercive force against other people. I'd rather that there be some measure of influence by the average person over the locus of control for power in society, rather than it be subject to whoever can currently beat back or cow everyone else most effectively. I don't think government is perfect, nor that democracy is perfect as a system of government. I do think that many people who idealize lack of government would change their tunes if they were actually subject to the state of affairs they advocate.
Slashdot Mirror
You're confusing fragmentation with competition.
Monsters.
Maybe take a couple seconds for just a smidge of proofreading, occasionally, before actually posting them articles.
How pointless and unfunny the entirety of idle is?
don't forget the egronomic keyboard for Pirates:
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=610
arr.
Making the claim that senators ought to be appointed by the state, then running for office by popular election (into a state where he'd just carpetbagged his way over to) is hypocritical. For a man who makes such a point of ethical and moral standards, that hypocrisy certainly does make him look bad, or at least to the non-ideologically distorted.
And who's the Great Tyrant you refer to? I can only think of a great man named Lincoln who righteously smashed the confederates. Would that he'd let Grant burn more of the cities and scorch more of the earth, perhaps we'd have fewer ignorant southerners today. ;)
Yeah, also there's the fact that he was running for the Senate, despite advocating for appointment of senators by state legislatures (which presumably means he's advocating the repeal of the 17th amendment).
Gladwell is the Barack Obama of the writing world.
That IS a bad analogy.
I don't think Keyes is that great a public speaker, but I can't decide if it's cause he's objectively not that great, or if it's the fact that some of the shit he says comes of as totally insane/dishonest and it predisposes me against him.
You're right; I misspoke. There's no legitimate reason that's consistent with good governance and a free, democratic, and open society.
Well duh. It's cheaper and easier, and there's far less chance of getting caught, and you can do it in such a way as to hide who's dropping off the information and who's collecting it.
This is just about getting people to buckle under to arbitrary authority.
Cause there's no legitimate reason to do so.
What happened to reasonable search and seizure again? And don't gimmie the bullshit about this being the border, and thus completely outside the scope of normal legal protections. It's one thing to look for smuggled goods or potentially disease carrying goods, etc. But nothing you can carry on a laptop can't just be transmitted past customs over the internet. There's no actual reason to search peoples electronics at the border.
It was sarcasm.
It's just as possible. For some reason, though, the internet is the one that scares content providers. Maybe it's the democratic nature of the web, as you point out, but I suspect a lot of it's just illogical fear.
No one seems to be trying to defend or explain why Internet radio is being hit so much harder than satellite or broadcast.
That's an easy one. Cause people use the internet to steal copyrighted material.
It is vague, and your answer does nothing to clarify. You said:
Unpack that. Which services? Or just all of them? Is this based on specific statements he's made?
I don't live in your head, and so I don't have the welter of ideas you've apparently got about political candidates that would allow your intellectual shorthand to have meaning to me.
Could you expand on that vague yet sweeping statement?
Really? Cause if I were being asked that by a new employer, that's exactly what I'd say. It would very likely be a lie, but I wouldn't cop to it because 1) it might make them paranoid about me, and 2) they paid me for my skills, not for stealing shit from elsewhere.
Most of the code I have from previous workplaces is completely useless, too. Some of it's just too old to be useful (though they're some very well written FoxPro for Unix apps), most of it just doesn't fit my current job and will be useless when I get a new one, and a few choice bits are so astoundingly shitty, I just keep around to amuse myself periodically (KenM, I'm talking about your evil abortion).
He crashed 5 planes
That's not true. He actually lost four planes, but only crashed three. One was lost as the result of the Forrestal disaster (which he was fortunate to escape). There was an incident where he took down some power lines, but that wasn't a crash.
Also, if you think being a POW for 5 years doesn't make you a suitable candidate for being president, then what do you think does? Knowing something about policy? Thinking about issues? Not being a short tempered hothead?
Utter fucking horseshit.
People paralyzed from the neck down can use computers. They make these devices to allow them to do it.
Sorry, you might be dumb enough to buy the McCain camp spin, but actually the man's just about as intellectually curious as our current president.
Yeah. Pretty much.
Of course, that's what happens when you let a bunch of people ideologically dedicated to the proposition that government can't do anything right have control over the government.
Meh. You offer nothing challenging.
It appears you're drawing an incorrect inference from a post on Slashdot; do you want to:
- fail at making a clever response
- try re-reading and understanding the rather obvious interpretation
I was asking why that's possible. One would think they'd be able to shuttle data off the detectors without directly connecting them or exposing their control systems to the internet. I'm not discounting that there's a legitimate reason for that wasn't done, which is why I cleverly made the title of my post in the form of a question I wanted answered : "why is that even possible?"
Why can anyone get to the control systems for a piece of equipment like that from the internet?
You're welcome to disagree, in the same way that you're welcome to argue that the moon is actually composed of a green hued dairy product. Your disagreement, however, lacks foundation in empirical fact, as your moon-cheese assertion would.
Please note that this statement is not intended to denigrate the supporters of Ron Paul, per se. While I personally think paultards are a bunch of naive twits, that's a comparatively minor sin and not the general thrust of my comment. Rather, what I'm saying is that, in fact, paultards are a very minor force in American politics, at best, and will likely remain so for the remainder of Paul's political career/lifespan.
Well, you're entitled to your opinion. Personally, I'm not willing to give up everything I gain from a government in exchange for putative complete and total freedom you talk about.
Specifically, I'm not willing to give up my current state of being relatively free from having any random person be able to attack and kill me on the street without fear of repercussions. Or the protections we have that people who practice medicine, for example, are actually trained in their field, or that companies can't dump poisonous chemicals willy nilly into the environment, or a host of other responsibilities that government currently handles.
I don't want to live in an anarchy, mostly because I don't trust most people to behave responsibly. And, while we're calling spades spades, it's completely naive to think that the abolition of government will lead to the abolition of power - it'll merely shift it to those who can presently provide the greatest coercive force against other people. I'd rather that there be some measure of influence by the average person over the locus of control for power in society, rather than it be subject to whoever can currently beat back or cow everyone else most effectively. I don't think government is perfect, nor that democracy is perfect as a system of government. I do think that many people who idealize lack of government would change their tunes if they were actually subject to the state of affairs they advocate.