Yes, I know. The Californian method is even more Athenian. That's both good and bad, good when what's being "initiated" is constructive and actually serves the common good and thwarts a bad Legislature that wouldn't consider it, and bad when it's not. It hasn't been universally one or the other. If it's REALLY bad it can still be repealed or nullified later, but the abuse would still have taken place.
Everyone seems to have found a new shiny and forgotten that AT&T's DSL services - the ones that don't carry its own IPTV service - are still being subjected to data caps.
The term you're looking for is tyranny of the majority. Darfur. Tutsis versus Hutus. (American) Whites versus anyone with dark skin. Nazi Germans versus ethnic Jews. Saying people are "stupid and evil" isn't really accurate, though; call them selfish and hopelessly tribalistic and we'll be in agreement.
Tribalism and groupthink is the single biggest threat to democracy and egalitarianism and human civilization, which won't be civil if certain tribes have their way.
Move to California, then. Not that the process matters because it gets (ab)used to ram thru bad laws just the same, some worse than what even the Assembly would allow. If you can mislead and mis-educate enough people, even an Athenian process like this can be abused. Tyranny of the majority FTW.
No, I DID NOT make it sound that way, I made it sound exactly the opposite. You don't fucking understand the difference between laws that serve the common good and those that serve some selfish uber-tribal minority, do you? I don't often say this so bluntly without qualification, but you're a jackass and further engaging you is unconstructive. Bugger off.
I was referring to BAD laws getting proposed and passed. I realized after clicking Submit that I wasn't very transparent and had only implied it, but as you already know I couldn't edit the comment. Wasn't the implication obvious enough from the context in any case? Don't be pedantic if the purpose is just to mock my goof.
I hope they don't ignore the fact that even this process can be abused, if the wrong people (One Percenters or other tyrannical types) get a mind to do so. Need an example? Look no further than the state initiative process in California, United States, which is intended to function and serve the same purpose as this new process in Finland. It's been abused repeatedly to pass laws that had far less chance of being enacted through the traditional process.
'Open' process or not, if people can be successfully mislead or mis-educated into proposing and promoting bad legislation, the democratic and egalitarian processes can still run off the rails. A continuous ongoing "revolution" is the only means of preserving either. The revolution must never stop, because neither does the enemy it seeks to thwart.
... is that Google might lose its current degree of influence over governance if that governance isn't in the United States. Google would have far less sway with the ITU than with ICANN and the other U.S.-based agencies. Once again it's the 'selfish voice' masquerading as a 'voice of the people'.
Nope, I don't expect that. I didn't write I expect that. I wrote that I expect the One Percenters should suffer the loss in proportion to everyone else. Which they won't, of course.
After observing the antics of Apple, Samsung, and Motorola in the past year, in particular, how could anyone wind up still believing that patents and copyrights promote creation or indeed help anyone but the assignees? When does the true reform begin?
I find it curious that in your mind you associate the conclusions I shared with conspiracy theories, particularly because those theories are adopted by people from some other person, not reasoned out for themselves. That is precisely what I haven't done. You think reading a book by Milton Friedman is an objective source of information, "good data"? How quaint. I rejected what you handed me because it's not even data. Reading economic papers isn't data either: that is the interpretation of alleged data by someone other than you.
I'm sorry that it upsets you so that someone else has a dramatically different view of what causes recessions. And upset you it did, as your emotionally charged responses demonstrate. I regret playing into your emotional attack at all. What you criticized so strongly wasn't even the core purpose of my comments, just a tangent, but that didn't stop you. You immediately took a holier-than-thou attitude without hesitation and insulted my very character, repeatedly, because you are SO CERTAIN that you have the correct interpretation, and you are incensed that anyone would dare challenge it even indirectly.
WHY does what I wrote bother you so strongly? How does it affect you so viscerally? Do you still not recognize how delusional that behavior is? Do you still not recognize that the REASON why you responded as you have, in fact responded at all, had nothing at all to do with educating me or attaining a better understanding of objective reality? You had a motive, but it had nothing at all to do with science or furthering it.
I'd like to add that I can't quote any important cult-status figure like Milton Friedman as the source of my conclusions, because the conclusions are ENTIRELY my own. I've been observing and analyzing the economy MYSELF, and drawing MY OWN conclusions, not simply reading some other alleged genius' contrivances and then thinking to myself, "Yeah, it's like that!" That's what you've done. How do I know? Because you quoted him as the source of your own beliefs. Your inability to even recognize it is what dogmatism looks like. Enjoy your prison cell. It's a small one, indeed.
Well, now we know who authored your gospel. You seem to lack the perspective to recognize that it's just as likely that you are the crazy cargo cultist as it is that I am. That lack of perspective is that way of things with dogmatism and effective self-delusion. Your prison cell is your own mind, regardless how you wallpaper it.
Slashdot Mirror
If you did swear to such a thing, you wouldn't be wrong.
Except this Luddite's primary arguments, RAM allocation and stability, are apparently bullshit. Why even humor him with a Slashdot submission?
Yes, I know. The Californian method is even more Athenian. That's both good and bad, good when what's being "initiated" is constructive and actually serves the common good and thwarts a bad Legislature that wouldn't consider it, and bad when it's not. It hasn't been universally one or the other. If it's REALLY bad it can still be repealed or nullified later, but the abuse would still have taken place.
Everyone seems to have found a new shiny and forgotten that AT&T's DSL services - the ones that don't carry its own IPTV service - are still being subjected to data caps.
The term you're looking for is tyranny of the majority. Darfur. Tutsis versus Hutus. (American) Whites versus anyone with dark skin. Nazi Germans versus ethnic Jews. Saying people are "stupid and evil" isn't really accurate, though; call them selfish and hopelessly tribalistic and we'll be in agreement.
Tribalism and groupthink is the single biggest threat to democracy and egalitarianism and human civilization, which won't be civil if certain tribes have their way.
Move to California, then. Not that the process matters because it gets (ab)used to ram thru bad laws just the same, some worse than what even the Assembly would allow. If you can mislead and mis-educate enough people, even an Athenian process like this can be abused. Tyranny of the majority FTW.
No, I DID NOT make it sound that way, I made it sound exactly the opposite. You don't fucking understand the difference between laws that serve the common good and those that serve some selfish uber-tribal minority, do you? I don't often say this so bluntly without qualification, but you're a jackass and further engaging you is unconstructive. Bugger off.
I was referring to BAD laws getting proposed and passed. I realized after clicking Submit that I wasn't very transparent and had only implied it, but as you already know I couldn't edit the comment. Wasn't the implication obvious enough from the context in any case? Don't be pedantic if the purpose is just to mock my goof.
I hope they don't ignore the fact that even this process can be abused, if the wrong people (One Percenters or other tyrannical types) get a mind to do so. Need an example? Look no further than the state initiative process in California, United States, which is intended to function and serve the same purpose as this new process in Finland. It's been abused repeatedly to pass laws that had far less chance of being enacted through the traditional process.
'Open' process or not, if people can be successfully mislead or mis-educated into proposing and promoting bad legislation, the democratic and egalitarian processes can still run off the rails. A continuous ongoing "revolution" is the only means of preserving either. The revolution must never stop, because neither does the enemy it seeks to thwart.
Seems like Linode had more in common with Disney's Pirates of the Caribbean ride than, say, San Francisco Bay. Yarrr!
Nah... we want the house to jump, not the people in it! :-)
So what does the shantytown version look like?
... is that Google might lose its current degree of influence over governance if that governance isn't in the United States. Google would have far less sway with the ITU than with ICANN and the other U.S.-based agencies. Once again it's the 'selfish voice' masquerading as a 'voice of the people'.
I should have ended with </sarcasm>, I guess?
Nope.
My .
"Ammunition sold separately. For ages 21 and up. Proof of basement address required."
Tell that to a worm when he's recovering from last night's bender.
That's what the worm-snarfing Sheriff of Nottingham is still saying now!
Hypertext doesn't respect intellectual property boundaries. Linking is stealing! </sarcasm>
Nope, I don't expect that. I didn't write I expect that. I wrote that I expect the One Percenters should suffer the loss in proportion to everyone else. Which they won't, of course.
After observing the antics of Apple, Samsung, and Motorola in the past year, in particular, how could anyone wind up still believing that patents and copyrights promote creation or indeed help anyone but the assignees? When does the true reform begin?
That's very descriptive of an economic jungle. Jungles have no ethic.
I find it curious that in your mind you associate the conclusions I shared with conspiracy theories, particularly because those theories are adopted by people from some other person, not reasoned out for themselves. That is precisely what I haven't done. You think reading a book by Milton Friedman is an objective source of information, "good data"? How quaint. I rejected what you handed me because it's not even data. Reading economic papers isn't data either: that is the interpretation of alleged data by someone other than you.
I'm sorry that it upsets you so that someone else has a dramatically different view of what causes recessions. And upset you it did, as your emotionally charged responses demonstrate. I regret playing into your emotional attack at all. What you criticized so strongly wasn't even the core purpose of my comments, just a tangent, but that didn't stop you. You immediately took a holier-than-thou attitude without hesitation and insulted my very character, repeatedly, because you are SO CERTAIN that you have the correct interpretation, and you are incensed that anyone would dare challenge it even indirectly.
WHY does what I wrote bother you so strongly? How does it affect you so viscerally? Do you still not recognize how delusional that behavior is? Do you still not recognize that the REASON why you responded as you have, in fact responded at all, had nothing at all to do with educating me or attaining a better understanding of objective reality? You had a motive, but it had nothing at all to do with science or furthering it.
I'd like to add that I can't quote any important cult-status figure like Milton Friedman as the source of my conclusions, because the conclusions are ENTIRELY my own. I've been observing and analyzing the economy MYSELF, and drawing MY OWN conclusions, not simply reading some other alleged genius' contrivances and then thinking to myself, "Yeah, it's like that!" That's what you've done. How do I know? Because you quoted him as the source of your own beliefs. Your inability to even recognize it is what dogmatism looks like. Enjoy your prison cell. It's a small one, indeed.
Well, now we know who authored your gospel. You seem to lack the perspective to recognize that it's just as likely that you are the crazy cargo cultist as it is that I am. That lack of perspective is that way of things with dogmatism and effective self-delusion. Your prison cell is your own mind, regardless how you wallpaper it.