While I would consider such civil disobedience in this case to be incredibly stupid and counter-productive at the least and seriously damaging at the worst, you seem to be asserting that civil disobedience that causes inconvenience or which could be characterized as disturbing the peace or disorderly conduct is NEVER warranted.
By that standard, there would still be Jim Crow. It was civil disobedience, sitting down in streets, blocking traffic, sitting unwanted in bus front seats and whites-only lunch counters that started the eventual end of the apartheid that existed in America. It was absolutely legitimate and warranted.
Times now are different though, I think such kinds of protest these days are almost always completely ineffectual and actually damaging to the cause of those engaging in them.
"It also notes that these informants were working on the inside of the protest groups for quite some time, to minimize any doubt that these folks were up to no good. So, in other words, the cops were doing their job"
Really? It's the cops' job to infiltrate and spy on citizens and citizens' groups? Not based on evidence of wrongdoing, but to find out IF they are inclined towards wrongdoing?
And it's their job to raid people's homes without arresting them, confiscate common household items, and release the people while keeping the items - because the cops suspect that these items COULD be used illegally and MIGHT be used illegally because of the political beliefs of the citizens?
I agree - it's like so totally unfair to take people's word over that of the government. It's like you're PRESUMING people didn't do something. Presumption of innocence - isn't that a kind of prejudice?
Just like in trials... it's so totally unfair that the government has to PROVE their allegations against people who are arrested, but those people don't have to PROVE that they are innocent!
Why can't we just TRUST the government, and when they say someone did something, that means they did it unless they have ironclad proof that they didn't?
Guilty until proven innocent - that's what we need. How else will the government ever be able to be safe from the people?
It's interesting... in an earlier post of yours you talk about how it's perfectly legal for people to take photos in a public place where there's no expectation of privacy.
And now you post this. Do you realize that some of the people attacked (yes, attacked) by the authorities were NOT people planning protests, but rather people (and legal reps) planning merely to OBSERVE protests and videotape them to insure that people's rights are not violated? To make sure that the authorities don't commit crimes?
But no, you applaud this, because you're an authoritarian fuckwit hypocrite who is happy to see the law violated and rights trammeled upon, as long as the victims are people you don't like.
Actions like the police have done are eroding our civil rights - your civil rights. But you still have some. Stop now and think of those rights you still have. Now stop and realize, if you're capable of it, that the reason you HAVE those rights is because the people you detest - the liberals, the ACLU, the civil rights activists - fought for them. Fought for them in the streets and in the courts, against the attacks on them coming from people who think like you. People who are like you.
The people you detest fight for your rights against the attacks of people like you.
First, its only a matter of time before you do know people watching streaming HD.
Four teenage daughters means streaming video, streaming audio, online games, messaging, webcams, skype, often being used simultaneously. And by simultaneously, I mean ONE kid might be watching video while messaging while talking via skype, while perusing myspace. That's how kids operate these days - they multitask their brainless entertainment.
So that times four, meanwhile dad downstairs is watching a streamed movie, and mom is talking to her friends via skype. That shit adds up fast.
And then there's people like me, just download shitloads of stuff because its there.
You're thinking like what you are - a slashdot reader. Meaning, a single greasy male living in someone's basement.
Try a household with two parents and four teenage daughters like my sister's. A single HD movie worth of data in a day would mean that at least two people are at sleepovers.
I mean serious - are banks THAT hard up that they need the 20 bucks they can sell an old hard drive for? Take the fucking things out of the machines and destroy them. Get a few bucks less for your scrap computers.
I'm not saying the magpies aren't, I'm just saying the test may be unfair.
My cat doesn't pay attention to mirrors, but he's self-aware enough to know what he wants and know how to communicate that to me, literally tapping on my shoulder to get my attention (he's very polite, he doesn't meow when he wants something, he just drops hints.)
Who says not reacting to a mirror means not self-aware? Couldn't it just mean that the concept of a fucking mirror doesn't click with them? Not mirror-aware, perhaps?
Or maybe just not vain? My cat's not stupid, he's just modest!
Well, in your analogy the new thing is more efficient and worth waiting for and upgrading to.
Are you saying that Vista requires more memory and a faster processor because it's more efficient than XP? Because it's so muhc more useful and advanced? Here - let me fix the analogy for you.
It's as if Saab released a new car that used standard gasoline, but needed so MUCH of that gasoline to run that your local gas station had trouble supplying your needs. But the new Saab is WORTH that much expense on gas, because it has comfier seats, cooler styling, and the radio's ergonomically designed to be easy to use.
I don't think this guy was trolling, I think it was a joking reference to McCain's own astroturfing scheme where he gives points for swag to people who cut and paste his talking points into blog comments.
It still is likely that it's more environmentally friendly even if the electricity comes from coal plants, because generating power centrally in large amounts is going to be more efficient than having millions of little emissions-producing power plants.
The Revolution was a liberal cause in the extreme. The "conservative" principles were not the ones founding this country, they were the ones fighting to prevent its independence from England. You Tory.
It's a monopoly issue because he had to go through hell to get the product he wanted from the only game in town.
If Pepsi tastes like shit to you, you can drink Coke or Sprite or Dr. Pepper or water... unless Pepsi is all there is.
He didn't like the "flavor" of the one product available to him, and you're saying essentially that he was NOT denied a product that suited his purposes, he just needed to not reject the "flavor" he didn't like. He just needed to change his purposes.
The problem was caused by a stupid obscenity filter AND a monopoly.
The obscenity filter made one company's product unsuitable or unworkable.
The fact that he didn't have plenty of alternatives to a company offering him what was for him a poor value or unworkable product was caused by them being a monopoly.
That's the thing that I wonder about... when you see SpaceX's facilities, they are clearly brare-bones, right down to the launch pad. Obviously they are trying to make their launches cheaper by not "wasting" money.
Since the three launches have all failed for different reasons, and seemingly reasons not indicating design flaws but rather mundane problems and errors that weren't caught (a rusty bolt, separation failure of the stages, etc.,) it makes me wonder if this is not rather an exposure of a flaw in the business model. Essentially they are all quality-control issues. Could it be that you simply need to have a largish organization to provide the checks and redundancy to catch the flaws that are always going to crop up in a complex system?
Is this a failure not of the booster, but of a barebones, "cheaper" organizational structure that's just not up to the task?
Punishing the telecoms WOULD go a long way towards dealing with the fundamental problem. Had AT&T done the right thing, and called CNN when they were asked to perform illegal wiretaps, then perhaps the government would think twice about asking corporations to break the law.
The government shouldn't work on the honors system. If we can't prosecute the telecoms, then we will never be able to get evidence against the real criminals who ordered the wiretaps.
AT&T going to CNN with info about a crime would be like Bonnie going to Clyde.
Bigoted? BIGOTED? I am very tired of people (oddly enough, usually right-wingers or religious people) claiming that criticism of their ideas, beliefs, actions or politics is bigotry.
Bigotry is criticism and disdain for someone based on innate characteristics - ethnicity, gender, sexuality, etc.
Criticizing ideas, beliefs, political philosophies, speech and actions is not bigotry, can never be bigotry. It can be correct, it can be incorrect, it can be a matter of opinion, it can be rude, and it can be a mask for bigotry such as criticizing someone's ideas not honestly because of their ideas but instead because of their race, etc... Butu an honest criticism of ideas, political philosophy, beliefs, etc. is NOT bigotry. In fact, it's NECESSARY.
ALL ideas, systems of morality, philosophies and beliefs are fair game for criticism.
This keeps cropping up - people claiming that criticism of their political or religious beliefs is bigotry. I think this is a deliberate and cynical attempt to shield their ideas from fair scrutiny by co-opting the language of liberalism (in the generic sense) and in fact co-opting the suffering of victims of TRUE bigotry.
Slashdot Mirror
By that standard, there would still be Jim Crow. It was civil disobedience, sitting down in streets, blocking traffic, sitting unwanted in bus front seats and whites-only lunch counters that started the eventual end of the apartheid that existed in America. It was absolutely legitimate and warranted.
Times now are different though, I think such kinds of protest these days are almost always completely ineffectual and actually damaging to the cause of those engaging in them.
Really? It's the cops' job to infiltrate and spy on citizens and citizens' groups? Not based on evidence of wrongdoing, but to find out IF they are inclined towards wrongdoing?
And it's their job to raid people's homes without arresting them, confiscate common household items, and release the people while keeping the items - because the cops suspect that these items COULD be used illegally and MIGHT be used illegally because of the political beliefs of the citizens?
Are you fucking insane?
Just like in trials... it's so totally unfair that the government has to PROVE their allegations against people who are arrested, but those people don't have to PROVE that they are innocent!
Why can't we just TRUST the government, and when they say someone did something, that means they did it unless they have ironclad proof that they didn't?
Guilty until proven innocent - that's what we need. How else will the government ever be able to be safe from the people?
And now you post this. Do you realize that some of the people attacked (yes, attacked) by the authorities were NOT people planning protests, but rather people (and legal reps) planning merely to OBSERVE protests and videotape them to insure that people's rights are not violated? To make sure that the authorities don't commit crimes?
But no, you applaud this, because you're an authoritarian fuckwit hypocrite who is happy to see the law violated and rights trammeled upon, as long as the victims are people you don't like.
Actions like the police have done are eroding our civil rights - your civil rights. But you still have some. Stop now and think of those rights you still have. Now stop and realize, if you're capable of it, that the reason you HAVE those rights is because the people you detest - the liberals, the ACLU, the civil rights activists - fought for them. Fought for them in the streets and in the courts, against the attacks on them coming from people who think like you. People who are like you.
The people you detest fight for your rights against the attacks of people like you.
Shorthand: This is not a democracy, it's a corporatocracy.
All of the reasonably intelligent women and feminists I've heard from so far are INSULTED by McCain's choice.
Four teenage daughters means streaming video, streaming audio, online games, messaging, webcams, skype, often being used simultaneously. And by simultaneously, I mean ONE kid might be watching video while messaging while talking via skype, while perusing myspace. That's how kids operate these days - they multitask their brainless entertainment.
So that times four, meanwhile dad downstairs is watching a streamed movie, and mom is talking to her friends via skype. That shit adds up fast.
And then there's people like me, just download shitloads of stuff because its there.
Try a household with two parents and four teenage daughters like my sister's. A single HD movie worth of data in a day would mean that at least two people are at sleepovers.
Destroy the freaking hard drive.
I mean serious - are banks THAT hard up that they need the 20 bucks they can sell an old hard drive for? Take the fucking things out of the machines and destroy them. Get a few bucks less for your scrap computers.
My cat doesn't pay attention to mirrors, but he's self-aware enough to know what he wants and know how to communicate that to me, literally tapping on my shoulder to get my attention (he's very polite, he doesn't meow when he wants something, he just drops hints.)
Who says not reacting to a mirror means not self-aware? Couldn't it just mean that the concept of a fucking mirror doesn't click with them? Not mirror-aware, perhaps?
Or maybe just not vain? My cat's not stupid, he's just modest!
Yeah, I misread you... not enough caffeine.
Are you saying that Vista requires more memory and a faster processor because it's more efficient than XP? Because it's so muhc more useful and advanced? Here - let me fix the analogy for you.
It's as if Saab released a new car that used standard gasoline, but needed so MUCH of that gasoline to run that your local gas station had trouble supplying your needs. But the new Saab is WORTH that much expense on gas, because it has comfier seats, cooler styling, and the radio's ergonomically designed to be easy to use.
I don't think this guy was trolling, I think it was a joking reference to McCain's own astroturfing scheme where he gives points for swag to people who cut and paste his talking points into blog comments.
Still nothing like the cost of driving your power plant with you everywhere you go.
n/t
It still is likely that it's more environmentally friendly even if the electricity comes from coal plants, because generating power centrally in large amounts is going to be more efficient than having millions of little emissions-producing power plants.
The Revolution was a liberal cause in the extreme. The "conservative" principles were not the ones founding this country, they were the ones fighting to prevent its independence from England. You Tory.
No, that's prejudice. Prejudice and bigotry are not the same thing.
If Pepsi tastes like shit to you, you can drink Coke or Sprite or Dr. Pepper or water... unless Pepsi is all there is.
He didn't like the "flavor" of the one product available to him, and you're saying essentially that he was NOT denied a product that suited his purposes, he just needed to not reject the "flavor" he didn't like. He just needed to change his purposes.
You don't get it.
The obscenity filter made one company's product unsuitable or unworkable.
The fact that he didn't have plenty of alternatives to a company offering him what was for him a poor value or unworkable product was caused by them being a monopoly.
Since the three launches have all failed for different reasons, and seemingly reasons not indicating design flaws but rather mundane problems and errors that weren't caught (a rusty bolt, separation failure of the stages, etc.,) it makes me wonder if this is not rather an exposure of a flaw in the business model. Essentially they are all quality-control issues. Could it be that you simply need to have a largish organization to provide the checks and redundancy to catch the flaws that are always going to crop up in a complex system?
Is this a failure not of the booster, but of a barebones, "cheaper" organizational structure that's just not up to the task?
Snopes says no: http://www.snopes.com/cokelore/tadpole.asp
The story I heard is that fortune cookies were invented in New York City.
Punishing the telecoms WOULD go a long way towards dealing with the fundamental problem. Had AT&T done the right thing, and called CNN when they were asked to perform illegal wiretaps, then perhaps the government would think twice about asking corporations to break the law.
The government shouldn't work on the honors system. If we can't prosecute the telecoms, then we will never be able to get evidence against the real criminals who ordered the wiretaps.
AT&T going to CNN with info about a crime would be like Bonnie going to Clyde.
Bigotry is criticism and disdain for someone based on innate characteristics - ethnicity, gender, sexuality, etc.
Criticizing ideas, beliefs, political philosophies, speech and actions is not bigotry, can never be bigotry. It can be correct, it can be incorrect, it can be a matter of opinion, it can be rude, and it can be a mask for bigotry such as criticizing someone's ideas not honestly because of their ideas but instead because of their race, etc...
Butu an honest criticism of ideas, political philosophy, beliefs, etc. is NOT bigotry. In fact, it's NECESSARY.
ALL ideas, systems of morality, philosophies and beliefs are fair game for criticism.
This keeps cropping up - people claiming that criticism of their political or religious beliefs is bigotry. I think this is a deliberate and cynical attempt to shield their ideas from fair scrutiny by co-opting the language of liberalism (in the generic sense) and in fact co-opting the suffering of victims of TRUE bigotry.