I don't get it. When I see pictures of people with guns, I immediately try to discern the make and model, then go to the internet to get the specs to see if it's something I'd want to buy.
That's consumer stress. And it's obviously caused by the photo of the gun.
That's not what he requested. It lets you say "I want this thread run on that core." What he wanted was a function to tell "I want this thread to be run on whatever core that other thread runs without caring which core it is."
So you've made baseless assumptions without even following the links I've deliberately embedded in my text (and not just for mere reader convenience - hyperlinks are becoming an essential part of the modern literary format that cannot be separated from the text itself)...
I'm sorry if the assumption that you meant what you wrote was baseless, but yes, I usually do make that assumption. And what you wrote described large, powerful corporations working together to the detriment of normal people.
Would you pay taxes to Shell Oil without getting anything you value in return?
If I would have to fear to lose the essential basis of my current life if I don't: Yes, I would.
Would you send your kids to a school where they were expected to pledge allegiance to WalMart or learned WalMart's biased version of history?
If that was the only schools there are (or the only alternative were schools teaching Microsoft's distorted history or Haliburton's distorted history), and there's no prospect that people who never went to school got any good job later, yes I would.
Would you go fight a foreign war for FailBlog.org?
If otherwise my water supply would be cancelled and no shop would sell me food any more, maybe.
Would you shop at a pharmacy that abducted your neighbor for using herbal remedies they don't approve of?
If the alternative would be to be abducted myself, yes.
Would you let the currency in your wallet be inflated by Chuck E Cheese's?
You obviously don't know how money works. You cannot just decide about its worth.
Most people obviously would not!
If the conditions are "right", most people would.
And to quote again the text I originally replied to:
For example Microsoft might gain the identity of the individuals / businesses pirating their software (or at least the individuals / businesses like ISP's that refuse to cooperate in their investigation) and blacklist them with certain business groups where Microsoft may be influential. Vast business alliances can form naturally in the free market to protect common interests like anti-piracy, and a university may be contractually obligated to punish their students for "piracy" lest the university's garbage pickup company boycotts them - you get the idea.
If that's not a powerful oligopoly misusing its power, I don't know what is.
Easier: She switches off the access point for one week, without telling him, of course. There should be a witness for this. Then after a week, she asks (or better lets her lawyer ask) him if he still feels sick (of course, in a way that he doesn't get suspicious; maybe even ask him "did your headaches get worse this week" so he suspects the radiation was increased). If he says yes, then it's proof that it's not the Wi-Fi.
He should sue the LHC. No, not because of black holes, but because he is Higgs sensitive, and the LHC causes such a big disturbance of the Higgs field that he feels headaches even that far away. They also don't have to seek for the Higgs particle any more, because his headache already proves that the Higgs exists, so there's no reason to continue the experiments.:-)
Have you ever considered RTFM'ing up on an issue before asking the obvious questions that every introductory text (or audio-book [freekeene.com]) on Anarcho-Capitalism would clearly answer?
I didn't comment on Anarcho-Capitalism, I commented on the scenario given by the post I answered to. I don't know if that scenario fits Anarcho-Capitalism, and frankly, I don't care. The scenario described by that post is a horror scenario, plain and simple. If that scenario isn't the scenario of Anarcho-Capitalism, great for Anarcho-Capitalism.
Anarcho-Capitalists like me clearly believe that the greatest tyranny in a society comes from a monopoly on violence (aka government)
Great. In the scenario there was clearly a monopoly of violence (or, more exactly, an oligopoly). It just wasn't the state, but the big corporations.
So why not respect my right to opt out
I didn't say anything about your right or non-right to opt out. Indeed, I'm not in a position to give or take from you any right; most probably I don't even live in the same country as you do. I said what I though about the scenario given by the post I responded to, which I considered a horror scenario. That's all I did. If you are offended by that, that's just your problem. Just think about it your way: I don't have a contract with you to not say anything which may offend you, so why do you want to take that right away from me?
Even while typing that question I was debating whether to delete it, because I knew that some idiot would respond in the affirmative.
You are quite fast with labeling someone an idiot. You think the USA emerged just after defeating the native Americans and colonizing the new world? Or wasn't the whole reason of the declaration of independence that people felt they were living in a tyranny?
Also, have you ever looked to South America? It is also part of the new world, you know? Can't see any despotism in the history of South America?
Of course, wedding parties are extra dangerous, because married people tend to produce offspring, especially in the third world, and the offspring might one day kill you. By attacking wedding parties you can kill the enemy before he even is born.
It sounds to me like there is more to this than just funding. It sounds as though there is going to be some outreach to the IT industry for a better solution to their systems. Maybe open sourcing it?
"We just got in a patch from Iran. It changed the line
assert(target.not_in("USA")); to
assert(target.not_in("Iran")); I think we should revert it. What do you think?"
Taking a pirate and turning them into corporate drones where they have ready availability to free media (I used to get a box of 100 DVDs at a time for free from Warner) makes it so that their pirate instincts turn dull quickly. Fact is, while these guys would be resourceful in the beginning, they would quickly become dead weight since they'd stop thinking like pirates.
OK, so they simply should do it to all people, and the piracy problem would be solved soon.:-)
If a pirate and an anti-pirate collide, do we get a large release of energy, and could this be a way of powering the planet. No more need for fossil fuels...
Be aware that such annihilations usually produce large amounts of dangerous DRM radiation.
What you describe sounds to me like the antithesis of a free society. It may formally be a free society, but in reality it's a dictatorship of the big corporations. That's because the big corporations are the ones who have the power to force any contract they want on you. "Oh, you want to eat? Sorry, you have to buy our overpriced useless products, because we have a contract with all the food suppliers. Oh, and don't think you simply can grow food on your backyard. The food suppliers have a contract with the water companies that they immediately cut of the water of anyone who tries to grow his own food. Oh, BTW, did you know we have contracts with the company who owns the road in front of your house? Well, they will know how to prevent you from using their road should you make problems."
Seriously, as a Canadian this disgusts me. The EU, the US... What the hell gives these assholes the right to demand ANYTHING?
Well, everyone can demand everything. I also can demand that you give me a billion euros, immediately. Now, there's little chance that I'll get that, and no one will consider that demand justified, but I can demand it nevertheless.
Slashdot Mirror
That's why I read Slashdot at -1: Reading stupid comments makes me more intelligent.
That's consumer stress. And it's obviously caused by the photo of the gun.
No, it would be more like allowing AT&T to prevent you from using fax machines over their network.
Until your NNTP traffic gets limited to one bit per second ...
I always store on /dev/null. I can tell you, it's super fast! However, I'm experiencing a lot of data loss; maybe the device is broken.
That's not what he requested. It lets you say "I want this thread run on that core." What he wanted was a function to tell "I want this thread to be run on whatever core that other thread runs without caring which core it is."
Proof denies faith, and without faith, God is nothing. If the Devil particle proves God exists, then by God's argument's, He doesn't.
I have a good advice for you: Avoid zebra crossings!
I'm sorry if the assumption that you meant what you wrote was baseless, but yes, I usually do make that assumption.
And what you wrote described large, powerful corporations working together to the detriment of normal people.
If I would have to fear to lose the essential basis of my current life if I don't: Yes, I would.
If that was the only schools there are (or the only alternative were schools teaching Microsoft's distorted history or Haliburton's distorted history), and there's no prospect that people who never went to school got any good job later, yes I would.
If otherwise my water supply would be cancelled and no shop would sell me food any more, maybe.
If the alternative would be to be abducted myself, yes.
You obviously don't know how money works. You cannot just decide about its worth.
If the conditions are "right", most people would.
And to quote again the text I originally replied to:
If that's not a powerful oligopoly misusing its power, I don't know what is.
Easier: She switches off the access point for one week, without telling him, of course. There should be a witness for this. Then after a week, she asks (or better lets her lawyer ask) him if he still feels sick (of course, in a way that he doesn't get suspicious; maybe even ask him "did your headaches get worse this week" so he suspects the radiation was increased). If he says yes, then it's proof that it's not the Wi-Fi.
He should sue the LHC. No, not because of black holes, but because he is Higgs sensitive, and the LHC causes such a big disturbance of the Higgs field that he feels headaches even that far away. They also don't have to seek for the Higgs particle any more, because his headache already proves that the Higgs exists, so there's no reason to continue the experiments. :-)
I didn't comment on Anarcho-Capitalism, I commented on the scenario given by the post I answered to. I don't know if that scenario fits Anarcho-Capitalism, and frankly, I don't care. The scenario described by that post is a horror scenario, plain and simple. If that scenario isn't the scenario of Anarcho-Capitalism, great for Anarcho-Capitalism.
Great. In the scenario there was clearly a monopoly of violence (or, more exactly, an oligopoly). It just wasn't the state, but the big corporations.
I didn't say anything about your right or non-right to opt out. Indeed, I'm not in a position to give or take from you any right; most probably I don't even live in the same country as you do. I said what I though about the scenario given by the post I responded to, which I considered a horror scenario. That's all I did. If you are offended by that, that's just your problem. Just think about it your way: I don't have a contract with you to not say anything which may offend you, so why do you want to take that right away from me?
You are quite fast with labeling someone an idiot.
You think the USA emerged just after defeating the native Americans and colonizing the new world? Or wasn't the whole reason of the declaration of independence that people felt they were living in a tyranny?
Also, have you ever looked to South America? It is also part of the new world, you know? Can't see any despotism in the history of South America?
Who's the idiot?
If country A invades country B, it's country A's war, not country B's, even if country B fights back.
I would be very surprised, given that the SU doesn't exist any more.
Yes.
And the more-bad guys are always on the other side.
Of course, wedding parties are extra dangerous, because married people tend to produce offspring, especially in the third world, and the offspring might one day kill you. By attacking wedding parties you can kill the enemy before he even is born.
"We just got in a patch from Iran. It changed the line
assert(target.not_in("USA"));
to
assert(target.not_in("Iran"));
I think we should revert it. What do you think?"
You are advocating unmanned passenger planes?
US-American?
Wouldn't that violate other contracts?
OK, so they simply should do it to all people, and the piracy problem would be solved soon. :-)
If a pirate and an anti-pirate collide, do we get a large release of energy, and could this be a way of powering the planet. No more need for fossil fuels...
Be aware that such annihilations usually produce large amounts of dangerous DRM radiation.
What you describe sounds to me like the antithesis of a free society. It may formally be a free society, but in reality it's a dictatorship of the big corporations. That's because the big corporations are the ones who have the power to force any contract they want on you.
"Oh, you want to eat? Sorry, you have to buy our overpriced useless products, because we have a contract with all the food suppliers. Oh, and don't think you simply can grow food on your backyard. The food suppliers have a contract with the water companies that they immediately cut of the water of anyone who tries to grow his own food. Oh, BTW, did you know we have contracts with the company who owns the road in front of your house? Well, they will know how to prevent you from using their road should you make problems."
Well, everyone can demand everything. I also can demand that you give me a billion euros, immediately. Now, there's little chance that I'll get that, and no one will consider that demand justified, but I can demand it nevertheless.
So, where is my money? :-)
Well, it's a treaty. All the Canadians have to do is to not sign it.