The problem with that is now you have no means of getting into your machine remotely over ip after the vendor fucks it up. Vendors shouldn't be disabling firewalls as permanent solutions, but while troubleshooting, it does make sense to do it temporarily in order to ensure the firewall is not at fault. If your system is a highly sensitive target, you should already have means in place to troubleshoot problems without exposing yourself. Tell the vendor the procedures for that.
What's the point of rearchitecting it so that it can handle large rulesets efficiently if the whole thing will just be abstracted away in a VM anyway? What's next? a javascript interpreter in the kernel?
moving packets in and out of kernelspace will kill performance.. Well, I guess we'll see, anyway. iptables is used for more than just someone's dsl gateway, and even there, the hardware in use for those is already on the lean side.
Not just corp-rats, but PC-tards who would ban any sort of speech that questions the motivations of the dominant players in identity politics. The internet would have the culture of mainstream television.
No, all that would do is create a single, easy target for the subverters, since the power would be concentrated there. The best system is the one we have now, where everyone has the option to put up a site containing the content they wish, which lets the viewers decide what to think. The current system at least forces them to push their propaganda one site at a time, rather than lobbying their desires via this 'government.' This limits their reach to their own domains, and 'social' media accounts, and anyone who believes what they read on social and company sites is a fool anyway. There's no helping them. As far as wiki goes, it's full of bullshit in 'controversial' subject matter, but it's usually pretty easy to figure out what's bullshit and what isn't via the language and fact checks. It just requires some thought on the part of the reader. PR subversion is pretty obvious, so I'd rather have freedom and do the PR/propaganda filtering myself than let some blue ribbon panel decide what I can read/post.
Usually the people who suggest regulation to battle minor annoyances just want the opportunity to push their own brand of morality/reality on the rest of us. I don't know if that's your intention or not, but it is something to think about. Even if you don't intend this, someone else will use such an organization if it exists.
ron and rand paul aren't the tyrants here. The top 1% are. Libertarians want to take their power away by forcing them to compete in a more open market. They'll have to cover their own backs instead of having the taxpayer do it for them.
The federal government is basically a coalition of the fortune 100 corporations. The larger and more toxic to liberty it gets, the more power the 1% has over the rest of us. It's better to have a coalition of smaller governments as it makes it a lot harder to keep them all infiltrated enough. Also, the local interests of the population take precedence over the interests of people thousands of miles away, protecting the local values and interests of that section of society.
While centralized systems offer some advantages to this, a critical fault is that they have one point of failure.. kick it there, and it's yours for the pilfering. The founders knew that there are benefits to both, and that's why we have a system with both. However, in recent years the fed has gotten too large and too influential in too many areas for state governments to resist. "Do as we say on X, otherwise no funding for your Y" rules the day.
Today, the liberals draw more political power to the state with things like encroaching tax, identity politics, censorship, and other marxist tenets, while the neocons use that power to keep market cornering laws, passed for the benefit of their lobbyists, enforced. This includes things like tax loopholes, leaving the rest of us with the bill. Meanwhile corporates 'agree' to fund the liberals' identity politics campaigns and allow leftist politics into their corporate employee behavioral policies. This reenforces the left's voter base and keeps them coming back to the polls (vote for us or you'll lose your 'rights'!). The result is that both parties punch each other with one hand while patting each other on the back with the other, each supporting the other's interests while the rest of us lose our liberty to these very influential minority populations. Who walks away laughing to the bank? That top 1% liberals are always complaining about. Walking down the campaign funding tree to the largest donations, a lot of the names become the same across both parties. 'Why?' becomes an important question here.
I disagree.. we're near the edge of the continental shelf, just before it rapidly descends to the bottom. There's plenty of historical evidence to suggest that the slope is slippery with things like this.
State officials would use it to keep a lifetime's worth of movement on every citizen, and then monday morning quarterback the people engaging in activities (even if only the heuristics suggest it) they don't approve of. Same is true with autonomous cars and anything else billed as a public convenience. They would also be used to rake people over the coals if they are late on their treadmill taxes/useless license 'fees' in unrelated areas. Oh, you want to go to work? Sorry, denied, citizen. You didn't renew your 'autonomous transportation safety license.'
Oh goody. I can't wait to purchase one of these things. It's got all the tracking and remote control the wannabe KGB types running this country would want, google selling my location and destination information to all interested private parties, and it participates in the privacy rapage of anyone it happens to drive by.
Furthermore, sexual attraction is not the same thing as actually wanting sexual intercourse. It ranges from simple and almost universal things like the benign interest in the aesthetics of human bodies -- no matter the gender --, over gendered group bonding (best example: sports clubs) up until bonding with a specific individuals (best example here: soldiers in war).
This sounds like it came straight from some feminist university professor. It is not true. This bonding has nothing to do with sexual attraction. If you can 'admire' the same sex's sexual characteristics, you're gay!
1. I suspect this would be overcome.. people would masquerade by voting the interests of their 'home' party (whoever bought them out). Maybe some of these violations should be punishable by death?
2. Well, technically we're all supposed to pay about a 3rd of our income via income tax every year. It's a bit high, but we could start by removing the loopholes that allow the fortune 100 to get around it. I would start here, forcing specific companies (say the top 10-20, mainly banks) who've benefited the most from and/or took the lion's share of taxpayer support over the last 50 years, to pay 50%, which would do NOTHING but pay off existing national debt. This would be a special, one time, deal to fix the crazy imbalance we have now. Once that is paid off, it would be time to reevaluate what the taxation should be, whether we should retain the federal reserve at all, etc. People making wages near or below cost-of-living for their area would not pay any tax. Their lives are hard enough as it is. Set taxes on things usable as alternative currency just high enough to discourage such use...perhaps they only apply if you try to buy a lot of them (houses, cars etc)?
4. School is supposed to be about learning, not eating, playing sports, or any frivolity. Initially, I would cut everything but the essentials: math, english, science, and history (not social studies). Health (minus the PC brainwashing in sex ed), and gym (focusing on exercise regimen and habits, not games) also apply. Whatever the budget is, it would be solely focused on teachers, textbooks (paper or single function e-readers), and buildings that aren't 40F in the winter, and 95F in the summer. Start here. See how much it really costs, first. I think we've gotten so used to the status quo that it's nearly impossible for most to define what education actually is anymore. It's certainly not more ipads. The extra curriculars like sports, art, music, etc, would be funded separately as after-school camps, either privately or publicly, on a town by town basis. The schools would not be involved. This way athletic performance would not be a major factor in a student's social standing with the other students, or with the faculty. Athletic cult-worship is a real problem today, so much so, that this should happen at the collegiate level too. Let the NFL fund the football camps and use them to scout for talent..they have the money. Liberal arts colleges could help fund the other camps too. Obviously, this would be pay-to-play and inspire competition between camps, but this is little different than the current situation, it's just that those of us whose kids choose not to play, don't have to pay, and if the camps want external grants, they'll have to earn them.
All of this would result in a shortened school day, where the kids having trouble would have the last 2.5hours of the day to get extra help from the teachers who taught their classes. The rest work on homework in the library, go home, or to one of those after school camps.
7. Newscorp, clearchannel, etc. I think it is obvious.
8. I don't think people should be forced to pay more or less based on whether they're married, have kids, are men, women, white or not, etc. I see that as discriminatory. I think we should 'try' a flat tax. We really shouldn't be encouraging the poor to pump out more kids in order to get more rebates/handouts. It's what built the ghettos. If we must have the government control that money, it should go into free contraceptives/abortion. People who can't afford kids shouldn't have them.
If you want to discuss rationally, you could start by omitting ad hominems.
1. argument from authority, albeit a weak one. wikipedia isn't much of an authority on anything. They ARE a labor party in terms of standing for things that labor parties stand for. They just don't get as much traction to go as far as others have in other parts of the world. By the way, there's nothing wrong with organized labor, but, like any other position, taking it too far will result in misery for society. Companies with organized labor have no one to blame but their corporate policies.
2. Yes, they are. Just because they aren't 90% of the population doesn't mean they should have to work for free (or shitty, government controlled wages). Going to medical school takes just a 'little' bit more in the brains, dedication, and commitment department than working a fast food joint, so yes, they should make commensurately more. Ever work in a hospital? It's grueling work! Do you really want 3rd rate doctors working on you? It's the government that mandates things like insurance for ever growing lists of activities. These costs are passed on to patients. Some regulation is good and needed.. Too much is suffocating.
3. If someone makes 12 doughnuts, it doesn't intrinsically mean he owes 4 of them to people who cannot or will not make their own. Selfish interest is what drives the economy. Those people who want doughnuts will have to get jobs so they can buy some, and their labor will support the interest and desire of yet others. The failed socialist states of the 20th century proved that people are not sufficiently motivated to work when the only reward is the benefit to others. Take big government away, and there's nothing to lobby. Those corp-rats you hate so much will have to spend their own money to grab the market instead of the tax payers'. Sure, they hoard as much as they can, but it's the government that lets them get away with it. Without all those business friendly regulators granting monopolies, patents, and copyrights, they would not be able to do this for long and stay in business. Someone would undercut/outmaneuver them.
4. Again, more ad hom attacks and not a lot of logic. Those freedoms (yes, including the 2nd) are what protect citizens from the government AND the myopic lobbyist groups that've bought it out. Its weakness is that it is just a piece of paper, and without politicians who see their service as duty rather than career, it has no power. What, then, did you mean by 'international aid'? There WILL be a price to pay for that, and the question is, who will do the paying, and with what currency? (it won't be cash!)
7. I'm glad you realize that, though your post suggests you still bat for one of the teams. Maybe you should stop.
8. Actually, they are. 'sociopath' is one of many terms abused by people to attack the behavior of others they disapprove of. The right wing prefers the blunt end of a PR24, or a firearm, while the left prefers to label unapproved behavior as a mental illness that needs to be 'cured' at the cost of personal liberty. Be careful how you use such terms. A sociopath is someone who has no regard for the wellbeing of others due to a rare condition rooted in physiology, so I find it highly unlikely that a majority of our ruling class are sociopaths. Equating their behavior as such is a fallacy. Humans, like their primate cousins, are constantly engaged in a balancing act between selfish interest vs the group's. While the wealthy may simply see the opportunity to tilt this see-saw all the way in their favor and keep it there, your desire to tilt it back by growing government is what gives them the opportunity in the first place. The wealthy cannot rule without a complicit state.
You cannot 'make' genius. It can be encouraged, yes, but not made. Einstein was largely an evolutionary accident (you saw the recent articles on his brain, yes?), and I'll bet the same was true of other great minds. I would not call martin luther king a genius. H
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with that is now you have no means of getting into your machine remotely over ip after the vendor fucks it up. Vendors shouldn't be disabling firewalls as permanent solutions, but while troubleshooting, it does make sense to do it temporarily in order to ensure the firewall is not at fault. If your system is a highly sensitive target, you should already have means in place to troubleshoot problems without exposing yourself. Tell the vendor the procedures for that.
What's the point of rearchitecting it so that it can handle large rulesets efficiently if the whole thing will just be abstracted away in a VM anyway? What's next? a javascript interpreter in the kernel?
The abstraction will still kill performance, or at least drop it significantly.
moving packets in and out of kernelspace will kill performance.. Well, I guess we'll see, anyway. iptables is used for more than just someone's dsl gateway, and even there, the hardware in use for those is already on the lean side.
Yeah, but that VM will eat cpu with high bw loads and complex rulesets.
Then use -I to 'insert' a rule above the ESTABLISHED,RELATED line.
Go right ahead.. It's a free download.
Not just corp-rats, but PC-tards who would ban any sort of speech that questions the motivations of the dominant players in identity politics. The internet would have the culture of mainstream television.
No, all that would do is create a single, easy target for the subverters, since the power would be concentrated there. The best system is the one we have now, where everyone has the option to put up a site containing the content they wish, which lets the viewers decide what to think. The current system at least forces them to push their propaganda one site at a time, rather than lobbying their desires via this 'government.' This limits their reach to their own domains, and 'social' media accounts, and anyone who believes what they read on social and company sites is a fool anyway. There's no helping them. As far as wiki goes, it's full of bullshit in 'controversial' subject matter, but it's usually pretty easy to figure out what's bullshit and what isn't via the language and fact checks. It just requires some thought on the part of the reader. PR subversion is pretty obvious, so I'd rather have freedom and do the PR/propaganda filtering myself than let some blue ribbon panel decide what I can read/post.
Usually the people who suggest regulation to battle minor annoyances just want the opportunity to push their own brand of morality/reality on the rest of us. I don't know if that's your intention or not, but it is something to think about. Even if you don't intend this, someone else will use such an organization if it exists.
available for your home in 1995, only on nintendo ultra64!
ron and rand paul aren't the tyrants here. The top 1% are. Libertarians want to take their power away by forcing them to compete in a more open market. They'll have to cover their own backs instead of having the taxpayer do it for them.
The federal government is basically a coalition of the fortune 100 corporations. The larger and more toxic to liberty it gets, the more power the 1% has over the rest of us. It's better to have a coalition of smaller governments as it makes it a lot harder to keep them all infiltrated enough. Also, the local interests of the population take precedence over the interests of people thousands of miles away, protecting the local values and interests of that section of society.
While centralized systems offer some advantages to this, a critical fault is that they have one point of failure.. kick it there, and it's yours for the pilfering. The founders knew that there are benefits to both, and that's why we have a system with both. However, in recent years the fed has gotten too large and too influential in too many areas for state governments to resist. "Do as we say on X, otherwise no funding for your Y" rules the day.
Today, the liberals draw more political power to the state with things like encroaching tax, identity politics, censorship, and other marxist tenets, while the neocons use that power to keep market cornering laws, passed for the benefit of their lobbyists, enforced. This includes things like tax loopholes, leaving the rest of us with the bill. Meanwhile corporates 'agree' to fund the liberals' identity politics campaigns and allow leftist politics into their corporate employee behavioral policies. This reenforces the left's voter base and keeps them coming back to the polls (vote for us or you'll lose your 'rights'!). The result is that both parties punch each other with one hand while patting each other on the back with the other, each supporting the other's interests while the rest of us lose our liberty to these very influential minority populations. Who walks away laughing to the bank? That top 1% liberals are always complaining about. Walking down the campaign funding tree to the largest donations, a lot of the names become the same across both parties. 'Why?' becomes an important question here.
old is new is old is new is old is...new?
sorry, but just opening the floodgates to whatever is coming over the border just makes their home country's problems your country's problems.
I disagree.. we're near the edge of the continental shelf, just before it rapidly descends to the bottom. There's plenty of historical evidence to suggest that the slope is slippery with things like this.
Are you really that much of a crybaby? Your insecurity precedes you. Don't like it? Don't watch it.
However, I do agree that the whole vampire and zombie thing is overdone now...turning them into prisses made it worse.
State officials would use it to keep a lifetime's worth of movement on every citizen, and then monday morning quarterback the people engaging in activities (even if only the heuristics suggest it) they don't approve of. Same is true with autonomous cars and anything else billed as a public convenience. They would also be used to rake people over the coals if they are late on their treadmill taxes/useless license 'fees' in unrelated areas. Oh, you want to go to work? Sorry, denied, citizen. You didn't renew your 'autonomous transportation safety license.'
It's already bad enough as it is, no thanks.
Granted, but the current situation is under my control. The former is not.
Oh goody. I can't wait to purchase one of these things. It's got all the tracking and remote control the wannabe KGB types running this country would want, google selling my location and destination information to all interested private parties, and it participates in the privacy rapage of anyone it happens to drive by.
Furthermore, sexual attraction is not the same thing as actually wanting sexual intercourse. It ranges from simple and almost universal things like the benign interest in the aesthetics of human bodies -- no matter the gender --, over gendered group bonding (best example: sports clubs) up until bonding with a specific individuals (best example here: soldiers in war).
This sounds like it came straight from some feminist university professor. It is not true. This bonding has nothing to do with sexual attraction. If you can 'admire' the same sex's sexual characteristics, you're gay!
Leaving it up to the states is certainly a way to go..
way to be specific... we should be discouraging people who can't afford to have kids from having them. The current system does the opposite.
Never said they weren't important.. I just said they don't belong on the school budget.
For the communicating part, maybe.. for the actual working part? probably not, especially the kinds of work that require solitude and quiet.
1. I suspect this would be overcome.. people would masquerade by voting the interests of their 'home' party (whoever bought them out). Maybe some of these violations should be punishable by death?
2. Well, technically we're all supposed to pay about a 3rd of our income via income tax every year. It's a bit high, but we could start by removing the loopholes that allow the fortune 100 to get around it. I would start here, forcing specific companies (say the top 10-20, mainly banks) who've benefited the most from and/or took the lion's share of taxpayer support over the last 50 years, to pay 50%, which would do NOTHING but pay off existing national debt. This would be a special, one time, deal to fix the crazy imbalance we have now. Once that is paid off, it would be time to reevaluate what the taxation should be, whether we should retain the federal reserve at all, etc. People making wages near or below cost-of-living for their area would not pay any tax. Their lives are hard enough as it is. Set taxes on things usable as alternative currency just high enough to discourage such use...perhaps they only apply if you try to buy a lot of them (houses, cars etc)?
4. School is supposed to be about learning, not eating, playing sports, or any frivolity. Initially, I would cut everything but the essentials: math, english, science, and history (not social studies). Health (minus the PC brainwashing in sex ed), and gym (focusing on exercise regimen and habits, not games) also apply. Whatever the budget is, it would be solely focused on teachers, textbooks (paper or single function e-readers), and buildings that aren't 40F in the winter, and 95F in the summer. Start here. See how much it really costs, first. I think we've gotten so used to the status quo that it's nearly impossible for most to define what education actually is anymore. It's certainly not more ipads. The extra curriculars like sports, art, music, etc, would be funded separately as after-school camps, either privately or publicly, on a town by town basis. The schools would not be involved. This way athletic performance would not be a major factor in a student's social standing with the other students, or with the faculty. Athletic cult-worship is a real problem today, so much so, that this should happen at the collegiate level too. Let the NFL fund the football camps and use them to scout for talent..they have the money. Liberal arts colleges could help fund the other camps too. Obviously, this would be pay-to-play and inspire competition between camps, but this is little different than the current situation, it's just that those of us whose kids choose not to play, don't have to pay, and if the camps want external grants, they'll have to earn them.
All of this would result in a shortened school day, where the kids having trouble would have the last 2.5hours of the day to get extra help from the teachers who taught their classes. The rest work on homework in the library, go home, or to one of those after school camps.
7. Newscorp, clearchannel, etc. I think it is obvious.
8. I don't think people should be forced to pay more or less based on whether they're married, have kids, are men, women, white or not, etc. I see that as discriminatory. I think we should 'try' a flat tax. We really shouldn't be encouraging the poor to pump out more kids in order to get more rebates/handouts. It's what built the ghettos. If we must have the government control that money, it should go into free contraceptives/abortion. People who can't afford kids shouldn't have them.
If you want to discuss rationally, you could start by omitting ad hominems.
1. argument from authority, albeit a weak one. wikipedia isn't much of an authority on anything. They ARE a labor party in terms of standing for things that labor parties stand for. They just don't get as much traction to go as far as others have in other parts of the world. By the way, there's nothing wrong with organized labor, but, like any other position, taking it too far will result in misery for society. Companies with organized labor have no one to blame but their corporate policies.
2. Yes, they are. Just because they aren't 90% of the population doesn't mean they should have to work for free (or shitty, government controlled wages). Going to medical school takes just a 'little' bit more in the brains, dedication, and commitment department than working a fast food joint, so yes, they should make commensurately more. Ever work in a hospital? It's grueling work! Do you really want 3rd rate doctors working on you? It's the government that mandates things like insurance for ever growing lists of activities. These costs are passed on to patients. Some regulation is good and needed.. Too much is suffocating.
3. If someone makes 12 doughnuts, it doesn't intrinsically mean he owes 4 of them to people who cannot or will not make their own. Selfish interest is what drives the economy. Those people who want doughnuts will have to get jobs so they can buy some, and their labor will support the interest and desire of yet others. The failed socialist states of the 20th century proved that people are not sufficiently motivated to work when the only reward is the benefit to others. Take big government away, and there's nothing to lobby. Those corp-rats you hate so much will have to spend their own money to grab the market instead of the tax payers'. Sure, they hoard as much as they can, but it's the government that lets them get away with it. Without all those business friendly regulators granting monopolies, patents, and copyrights, they would not be able to do this for long and stay in business. Someone would undercut/outmaneuver them.
4. Again, more ad hom attacks and not a lot of logic. Those freedoms (yes, including the 2nd) are what protect citizens from the government AND the myopic lobbyist groups that've bought it out. Its weakness is that it is just a piece of paper, and without politicians who see their service as duty rather than career, it has no power. What, then, did you mean by 'international aid'? There WILL be a price to pay for that, and the question is, who will do the paying, and with what currency? (it won't be cash!)
7. I'm glad you realize that, though your post suggests you still bat for one of the teams. Maybe you should stop.
8. Actually, they are. 'sociopath' is one of many terms abused by people to attack the behavior of others they disapprove of. The right wing prefers the blunt end of a PR24, or a firearm, while the left prefers to label unapproved behavior as a mental illness that needs to be 'cured' at the cost of personal liberty. Be careful how you use such terms. A sociopath is someone who has no regard for the wellbeing of others due to a rare condition rooted in physiology, so I find it highly unlikely that a majority of our ruling class are sociopaths. Equating their behavior as such is a fallacy. Humans, like their primate cousins, are constantly engaged in a balancing act between selfish interest vs the group's. While the wealthy may simply see the opportunity to tilt this see-saw all the way in their favor and keep it there, your desire to tilt it back by growing government is what gives them the opportunity in the first place. The wealthy cannot rule without a complicit state.
You cannot 'make' genius. It can be encouraged, yes, but not made. Einstein was largely an evolutionary accident (you saw the recent articles on his brain, yes?), and I'll bet the same was true of other great minds. I would not call martin luther king a genius. H