I was thinking that maybe it was one of the AMAs featuring a real live sociopath. The timeline doesn't fit, but the being labeled a troll part does: this one here seemed to lie in almost every answer he gave. In particular, he claimed that he tried very hard not to act like a typical sociopath, and that he considered all the implications of any given action, but then claimed that he'd never bother to help out any of his "friends", keeping them around only for his own amusement. He admitted to lying habitually for no reason. I would believe that he was in fact a sociopath (or at least narcissistic), but wouldn't believe a word he said beyond that.
Sure there is. Treat little guys different, legally, than big corporations. And if corporations ever try to use a little guy as a proxy to get around that, punish them with public executions of whoever made that decision, and also whoever was in effective charge of the company (such that simply hiring a figurehead CEO wouldn't dodge the death penalty for whoever's actually running the company).
It won't happen, but it's nice to think about, and would solve that problem pretty handily.
The problem with the government competing with private companies is that 1) they suck at it - there's no efficiency, and 2) they have too much power, and could wind up running at a loss and drive them out of business while still sucking tax dollars.
It would seem to be much better just to forcibly break up the corporations when they get too much power. That way they still have to run efficiently, but the public gets the benefit of competition. Doing this to, say, telecom companies would be good. Well, first execute (as in kill) the top management of those who have been anti-competitive, to send a message. Then break up the companies and force them to compete against each other, AND to lease their lines.
The problem with roman_mir is that with him, libertarianism is a religion to be followed blindly and unquestioningly. It has some nice ideas, and the focus on personal freedom is a good thing, but it just doesn't work in the real world. What people should do is take the focus on personal liberty, and realization that regulations and taxes are evil (albeit necessary - but the realization that they are evil leads one to use them wisely and sparingly), and combine it with a government that is minimal, efficient, and still does what is needed: police, firefighting, defense of the nation, breaking up of monopolies and oligopolies, regulation for safety reasons where necessary (and with the understanding that striving for 100% safety is impossible and idiotic), et cetera. A necessary part of government should be to fight against excessive corporate power, as opposed to the current US government which is bought by it.
Anyway, my point is, you can't argue with roman_mir because he's a religious fool.
You're not the only one: I can confirm that it does this. Used to happen all the time with my previous inter-net provider (shitty, disconnected all the time).
What Canada and the US both need is popular veto, whereby if there are enough signatures on a petition to veto a law, it's put to a vote, and if it's vetoed, then every politician who voted in favour of that law is subject to a recall.
Then we could stop them from introducing it again and again.
Of course, it'd be better if, if they're recalled, they owe all of their salary that they earned since last being voted in, not dischargable by bankruptcy, and they're prohibited for ten years from working for any company with which their lawmaking activites may have caused a conflict of interest.
Or better still, they could be executed, but I imagine fewer people would go for that. I would be delighted to see them hang at the end of a rope, though.
It sure as hell does NOT mean that if the person who got assassinated was trying to destroy the freedom of every single person in the country, like these Conservative scumbags are doing.
That's the best idea I've ever heard. Then when you actually do forget the password, you can spend 14 years in jail for contempt over nothing incriminating at all. You're a genius.
To follow up: I feel that it's worth pointing out that I'm not a birther by any means. But that sly little comment you made sneakily implies that the only reason anyone might doubt Obama's citizenship, or even just use it as a tool against him, is that they are racist. That is complete and utter garbage.
Slashdot Mirror
Why the fucking hell were you modded Troll? This is how it is! This is exactly how it is!
I was thinking that maybe it was one of the AMAs featuring a real live sociopath. The timeline doesn't fit, but the being labeled a troll part does: this one here seemed to lie in almost every answer he gave. In particular, he claimed that he tried very hard not to act like a typical sociopath, and that he considered all the implications of any given action, but then claimed that he'd never bother to help out any of his "friends", keeping them around only for his own amusement. He admitted to lying habitually for no reason. I would believe that he was in fact a sociopath (or at least narcissistic), but wouldn't believe a word he said beyond that.
So maybe he's that guy.
Sure there is. Treat little guys different, legally, than big corporations. And if corporations ever try to use a little guy as a proxy to get around that, punish them with public executions of whoever made that decision, and also whoever was in effective charge of the company (such that simply hiring a figurehead CEO wouldn't dodge the death penalty for whoever's actually running the company).
It won't happen, but it's nice to think about, and would solve that problem pretty handily.
The problem with the government competing with private companies is that 1) they suck at it - there's no efficiency, and 2) they have too much power, and could wind up running at a loss and drive them out of business while still sucking tax dollars.
It would seem to be much better just to forcibly break up the corporations when they get too much power. That way they still have to run efficiently, but the public gets the benefit of competition. Doing this to, say, telecom companies would be good. Well, first execute (as in kill) the top management of those who have been anti-competitive, to send a message. Then break up the companies and force them to compete against each other, AND to lease their lines.
The problem with roman_mir is that with him, libertarianism is a religion to be followed blindly and unquestioningly. It has some nice ideas, and the focus on personal freedom is a good thing, but it just doesn't work in the real world. What people should do is take the focus on personal liberty, and realization that regulations and taxes are evil (albeit necessary - but the realization that they are evil leads one to use them wisely and sparingly), and combine it with a government that is minimal, efficient, and still does what is needed: police, firefighting, defense of the nation, breaking up of monopolies and oligopolies, regulation for safety reasons where necessary (and with the understanding that striving for 100% safety is impossible and idiotic), et cetera. A necessary part of government should be to fight against excessive corporate power, as opposed to the current US government which is bought by it.
Anyway, my point is, you can't argue with roman_mir because he's a religious fool.
It deserves the coveted "5, Troll" mod. Everything in it is true.
Just stop. Every one of your posts has been this illiterate nonsense. Stop posting and save yourself the embarrassment.
You're not the only one: I can confirm that it does this. Used to happen all the time with my previous inter-net provider (shitty, disconnected all the time).
It wouldn't be wrong, just illegal. The consequences, though, might be something you'd want to avoid.
So instead of an intact aircraft slamming into a crowd, you now have a big flaming ball of metal flying into the crowd . . .
Sir, you know it's possible to shoot down an attacking aircraft away from its target, right?
Who paid you to shill for OpenOffice?
Someone stupid enough to suggest that you'd need a Windows server to run Apache shouldn't have a job.
Shooting an unarmed person is not self defense.
It is if he's beating you at the time. I hope somebody decides to beat you, and they give you permanent injuries.
You're telling PopeRatzo to cut the FUD? Talk about wasting your time...
Do you not understand that that's what catastrophic coverage is for? Are you reading a single word he's saying?
I've heard that Switzerland actually has such a thing, so it's not a totally impossible idea.
Congratulations, sir, on posting the single most horrifying thing I've ever read.
What Canada and the US both need is popular veto, whereby if there are enough signatures on a petition to veto a law, it's put to a vote, and if it's vetoed, then every politician who voted in favour of that law is subject to a recall.
Then we could stop them from introducing it again and again.
Of course, it'd be better if, if they're recalled, they owe all of their salary that they earned since last being voted in, not dischargable by bankruptcy, and they're prohibited for ten years from working for any company with which their lawmaking activites may have caused a conflict of interest.
Or better still, they could be executed, but I imagine fewer people would go for that. I would be delighted to see them hang at the end of a rope, though.
It sure as hell does NOT mean that if the person who got assassinated was trying to destroy the freedom of every single person in the country, like these Conservative scumbags are doing.
I'd dance on their graves.
It was a joke. I suppose my use of terms explaining that could be improved as well.
Yes, I'm SURE she's happy with your continuing use of OkCupid to meet women...
That's the best idea I've ever heard. Then when you actually do forget the password, you can spend 14 years in jail for contempt over nothing incriminating at all. You're a genius.
Goddamn, why can't somebody garrote that guy and videotape it for our enjoyment?
How is this condescending shit not modded down?
To follow up: I feel that it's worth pointing out that I'm not a birther by any means. But that sly little comment you made sneakily implies that the only reason anyone might doubt Obama's citizenship, or even just use it as a tool against him, is that they are racist. That is complete and utter garbage.