Nice job clipping out any relevant context, setting up a bunch of strawmen, and basically showing yourself to be intellectually dishonest and/or functionally illiterate. Kind of makes you look like a tool, doesn't it?
I don't know what your game is, but I don't care either.
by your definition, is it **ever** possible to have a government you would trust?
Yes.
what, reasonably, could Obama do (without overstepping the boundaries of the office) to bring about the conditions where you would 'trust' the government?
Nothing, and it's a stupid question in the first place. Why would it be on one man to overcome the well-deserved reputation for duplicity and self-service of the entire government? It might, theoretically, be possible for Obama to do something that will make me trust him, but since that "something" is making a public apology and stepping down -- at a minimum -- I won't be holding my breath.
***I don't trust humans in power systems who do not have accountability***
Rather than asking slanted questions, it might be more productive to consider the possibility that others can reach the same conclusions.
Pssh... Silliness. One of those cooking ladies on TV told me I should always separate my chicken breast into serving-sized portions before freezing it.
It's only illegal if it makes women feel like they're at some sort of disadvantage (even if no such disadvantage exists). File this one away with the others, for when some feminist liar starts claiming "feminism is about equality."
Not when that R&D budget is constantly being used to make all the same mistakes that Netscape made. Maybe you don't remember when Phoenix-Firebird-Firefox first showed up on the scene, its entire purpose was to be a standards-compliant, fast & lean browser experience. Fast forward 5..err..25 major versions, and we're looking at the same kitchen-sinking attitude that made Navigator such a bloated, unmaintainable mess.
No they didn't. They created Android and Chrome to get a piece of the action. Both provide them massive amounts of customer data for advertising (their real product).
No, I'm pretty sure that was accomplished during the design phase. Anything that relies on advertisers "following the rules" is a failure from the word go. They're just spammers with banner ads.
Are you not reading the story you posted this to? Take a look at the headline, and try to imagine what might change about it (besides the year) if, by some miracle, Firefox OS actually begins to be any sort of threat to Android.
More valuable to encourage is software that works. In my limited experience (a couple of stats classes in college), R filled my needs as well as Mathematica, so I didn't need it and didn't use it. There's plenty of free software that just doesn't work worth crap (I'm looking at you, GIMP).
When you use your computer for your livelihood, rather than just some political statement, then philosophy comes far down the list of priorities (above it being "budget" and "does the shit work", for starters). Then there's FOSS that's "plenty good enough", and sometimes even "Best in class" (this is generally server-side) and I use many of those. But getting done the work done that I'm trying to do is more important than "encouraging" politics.
Why do you think Free Software (as in Speech) does not provide real freedom not found in proprietary lock-in to free (temporarily, at least) as in beer?
Because, like most philosophical extremist propaganda, it relies on some strange redefinition of concepts.
To say "Free software" is "more free" than proprietary software: fine and dandy. No objections. But the FSF doesn't stop there.
The concept that "Free software" (as in copyleft) is more free than more permissive licenses (BSD, MIT, etc. just to name two) is contradictory from step 1. Both GPL software and Oracle software contain license clauses that say "You can use this software, but not in any way that we forbid." The GPL just happens to forbid a lot less, but more than the aforementioned non-copyleft licenses.
Wait, so spreading the costs over everyone in a single payer system is "eeebil commie socialism," but when we do it to protect corporate profits, that's A-OK?
While I'm all against abusive big-brother type monitoring, how else do you expect this to work? Initially there is no clear defining line saying when a type of monitoring becomes unacceptable. In order for the courts to establish that line, one side needs to argue to them that it is acceptable, while the other argues that it is not. If law enforcement doesn't argue the pro side, who will?
And then they complain when it gets pointed at them. That would be what makes them hypocrites.
Yes, they're human beings. Combine that with a near-complete lack of accountability, and history and the status quo both show us where that leads. It started the other way around, by the way. The "good old days" of police being members of their communities went by the wayside with the war on drugs and resultant militarization of the police force.
There's a reason for the old snark "To a cop, there's 3 kinds of people: cops, cops' families, and suspects." Add to that the fact that unchecked corruption at the top makes the only difference between cops and mob thugs one of scale -- when laws aren't made for the public good, but at the boss(es)' whim, those enforcing them lose the moral high ground.
AFAIC, the police forces have a lot more fences to mend than the citizenry, at this point. The former deserve all the flack they get, and more.
Slashdot Mirror
Nice job clipping out any relevant context, setting up a bunch of strawmen, and basically showing yourself to be intellectually dishonest and/or functionally illiterate. Kind of makes you look like a tool, doesn't it?
I don't know what your game is, but I don't care either.
by your definition, is it **ever** possible to have a government you would trust?
Yes.
what, reasonably, could Obama do (without overstepping the boundaries of the office) to bring about the conditions where you would 'trust' the government?
Nothing, and it's a stupid question in the first place. Why would it be on one man to overcome the well-deserved reputation for duplicity and self-service of the entire government? It might, theoretically, be possible for Obama to do something that will make me trust him, but since that "something" is making a public apology and stepping down -- at a minimum -- I won't be holding my breath.
***I don't trust humans in power systems who do not have accountability***
Rather than asking slanted questions, it might be more productive to consider the possibility that others can reach the same conclusions.
Not the OP, but...
so...**no matter what** you view the US government as so untrustworthy
An extremely reasonable position to hold, even before Wikileaks/Snowden.
that there is absolutely nothing the Obama administration could do for you to thing they are telling the truth?
Grant him complete amnesty, publicly.
I am tired of the unrelenting hate, the spite... the insults, intolerance,... loathing and viciousness that spews out.
I love the smell of hypocritical irony in the morning. It smells like the grass in a cow pasture.
Pssh... Silliness. One of those cooking ladies on TV told me I should always separate my chicken breast into serving-sized portions before freezing it.
Go home, Zhaan. You're drunk.
It's only illegal if it makes women feel like they're at some sort of disadvantage (even if no such disadvantage exists). File this one away with the others, for when some feminist liar starts claiming "feminism is about equality."
How is that even possible?
The old "Capital-I instead of lowercase-l in dumbass fonts" trick. /86
Not when that R&D budget is constantly being used to make all the same mistakes that Netscape made. Maybe you don't remember when Phoenix-Firebird-Firefox first showed up on the scene, its entire purpose was to be a standards-compliant, fast & lean browser experience. Fast forward 5..err..25 major versions, and we're looking at the same kitchen-sinking attitude that made Navigator such a bloated, unmaintainable mess.
No they didn't. They created Android and Chrome to get a piece of the action. Both provide them massive amounts of customer data for advertising (their real product).
You probably also think America got less free when they forbade slavery. One more regulation, you no longer have the freedom to own slaves!
And people still wonder why the FSF isn't taken seriously?
would literally make it a useless standard.
No, I'm pretty sure that was accomplished during the design phase. Anything that relies on advertisers "following the rules" is a failure from the word go. They're just spammers with banner ads.
Are you not reading the story you posted this to? Take a look at the headline, and try to imagine what might change about it (besides the year) if, by some miracle, Firefox OS actually begins to be any sort of threat to Android.
You're either confusing or conflating the software with the output. There is plenty of proprietary software that produces output in standard formats.
More valuable to encourage is software that works. In my limited experience (a couple of stats classes in college), R filled my needs as well as Mathematica, so I didn't need it and didn't use it. There's plenty of free software that just doesn't work worth crap (I'm looking at you, GIMP).
When you use your computer for your livelihood, rather than just some political statement, then philosophy comes far down the list of priorities (above it being "budget" and "does the shit work", for starters). Then there's FOSS that's "plenty good enough", and sometimes even "Best in class" (this is generally server-side) and I use many of those. But getting done the work done that I'm trying to do is more important than "encouraging" politics.
(Not the GP)
Why do you think Free Software (as in Speech) does not provide real freedom not found in proprietary lock-in to free (temporarily, at least) as in beer?
Because, like most philosophical extremist propaganda, it relies on some strange redefinition of concepts.
To say "Free software" is "more free" than proprietary software: fine and dandy. No objections. But the FSF doesn't stop there.
The concept that "Free software" (as in copyleft) is more free than more permissive licenses (BSD, MIT, etc. just to name two) is contradictory from step 1. Both GPL software and Oracle software contain license clauses that say "You can use this software, but not in any way that we forbid." The GPL just happens to forbid a lot less, but more than the aforementioned non-copyleft licenses.
Which is exactly what he said, so how is that full of crap? $300 is too much for something he'd just putter around with.
Or, rather, do you consider R&D to be pointless and not something Mozilla should do?
When I consider most of the "innovations" we've seen since Firefox 3.5, I find that this smart-ass rhetorical might actually be preferable.
uh, that was no hominid.
It was a space station.
An alternative to sibling post:
Because these traits in us do not generally -- and were likely never meant to -- scale beyond our own family/tribal unit.
Wait, so spreading the costs over everyone in a single payer system is "eeebil commie socialism," but when we do it to protect corporate profits, that's A-OK?
Why would that be a "rumor?" Was there also a "rumor" that Hillary Clinton believed the sky was blue?
While I'm all against abusive big-brother type monitoring, how else do you expect this to work? Initially there is no clear defining line saying when a type of monitoring becomes unacceptable. In order for the courts to establish that line, one side needs to argue to them that it is acceptable, while the other argues that it is not. If law enforcement doesn't argue the pro side, who will?
And then they complain when it gets pointed at them. That would be what makes them hypocrites.
Yes, they're human beings. Combine that with a near-complete lack of accountability, and history and the status quo both show us where that leads. It started the other way around, by the way. The "good old days" of police being members of their communities went by the wayside with the war on drugs and resultant militarization of the police force.
There's a reason for the old snark "To a cop, there's 3 kinds of people: cops, cops' families, and suspects." Add to that the fact that unchecked corruption at the top makes the only difference between cops and mob thugs one of scale -- when laws aren't made for the public good, but at the boss(es)' whim, those enforcing them lose the moral high ground.
AFAIC, the police forces have a lot more fences to mend than the citizenry, at this point. The former deserve all the flack they get, and more.
The police were fine with it when it was just the people. That 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend' cliche is utter trash.