The fact that only a few "bad apples" are affected by violent games won't stop the anti-freedom crowd. They can always trot out the "if it just saves one child, it will be worth it" hyperbole as long as we allow them to. After all, only a few "bad apples" cause harm with guns or other weapons: that doesn't stop the gun control crowd. How much freedom are we willing to give up? Eventually, all of it will be sacrificed on the altar of the state.
Well, not really. They're advocating planning the transition now instead of waiting until support ends, which will happen in 2014. That sounds really far away, but for some companies it could take that long to complete.
Students get disconnected from the network when a bot or worm or rootkit is detected. I'm not sure what methods they use to detect, but when this happens, the user is REQUIRED to bring their computer to the Residential Computing Desk and have it reformatted.
God forbid you get a false positive and they wipe out your machine for it. It seems like every major AV marks remote administration programs as malicious backdoors now.
You may be correct, but using Bloomberg as a good example is not something I agree with. You might as well use Jon Corzine. Bloomberg is an anti-freedom, hypocritical progressive who used the recession to push for a loosening of the mayoral term limit, making himself defacto dictator of NYC. He signed in the smoking and trans-fat bans. He is also currently involved in a-- you guessed it-- campaign finance scandal.
That would make sense if the reason we wanted to stop printing phone books was because phone numbers weren't changing often, or they were decreasing in number. I would guess that phone numbers are still changing quite often even if Canada has porting regulations like the USA, and the quantity of phone numbers certainly isn't decreasing. Why I'm trying to say is that the information in phone books is already often out of date; making it even more out of date creates a new problem.
They've been through medical school, so yeah, I'd say they are some of the smartest people in the world. I'm not saying they have the right to be assholes, but it seems like elitism is justified here.
Elitism is never justified. In fact, if you've been gifted with great intelligence, humility is a great trait to acquire lest you become one of those brainiacs who thinks he can do no wrong-- and so does on a daily basis.
As far as I'm concerned, there is no rational hate for Obama. He may have done some things you don't like, but he hasn't killed anybody.
Murder is the only justifiable reason for hatred? I'll let the victims of theft, fraud, assault, harassment, and rape know they have to stop the hatin'.
In my opinion, most people who hate Obama just can't stand the idea of people getting something for nothing
Yeah, that's a problem, don't you think? Actually, the problem is that the government is TAKING something for nothing.
(and in their minds, the people getting something for nothing are almost always a shade of brown).
Who knows, we could get a President who appointed even more incompetent cronies than Bush did
Uh... he's in there right now! He has an attorney general and director of homeland security who both admitted they hadn't gotten around to reading the Arizona immigration law. This didn't stop them from criticizing it. He has appointed several former Goldman Sachs people. He appointed his personal attorney's wife to be communications director. You'll remember Ms. Dunn as the nice lady who asked us to report anyone who spread "misinformation" to flag@whitehouse.gov. And, of course, now we find out that the White House (I won't pin it directly on the President yet-- although the law says indirect action is also felonious) offered appointments to TWO candidates if they would quit their primary races.
If people realized that they had to pay their for their "entitlements", they wouldn't support the government control necessary to provide them. Since people are greedy, they believe it when told that they'll get everything for free and we'll make the "rich" pay their fair share*.
* In the USA, the top 25% of earners (these are households earning $66K and up-- not what most would consider "rich") pay 87% of the taxes. Those earning $32K or less essentially pay no taxes: it's less than 3%.
Americans want to share their wealth VOLUNTARILY, which has made us the most charitable nation in the world. It's not charity when your government spends other people's money.
Capitalists greedily suck up all the wealth, then lazily sit around watching that capital grow by itself whilst everyone else does the work.
I'm sorry that this is your experience, but I assure you that I have known many small and medium sized businessmen, and they are far from lazy. No one can start a business by being lazy. Execs? Maybe a few of them fooled people into thinking they are competent leaders. But they're acting like employees, not capitalists.
It's no wonder that every capitalist country needs vast amounts of regulations, redistribution, welfare, public services, economic stimulus and bailouts. If capitalism worked, none of these things would be necessary.
Frankly, the laziest people I see are the politicians, who never started their own business, spent very little time working in the private sector (if at all), but somehow think they can tell people how to run theirs. They're the ones who impose byzantine regulations on industry, promise largess to every possible special interest, foster a "victimhood" culture among minorities, and then when the welfare state fails blame it on capitalism when natural capitalism simply can't exist in this environment. When GSEs like Fannie and Freddie are holding BILLIONS in bad loans, how is that a failure of capitalism? When Barney Frank knew this back in 2003 but claimed that "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial crisis" and opposed reform, how is that a failure of capitalism? When Sen. Dodd got a sweet loan from Countrywide even as it was cooking its books to hide the red ink, how is that a failure of capitalism? When oil companies undergo great environmental and human risk to drill miles under the ocean because the government says they can't drill on land, how is that a failure of capitalism?
The Indian family can have their refrigerator by emigrating to the USA like many other Indian families. We joke about how every 7-Eleven is run by an Indian, but ignore the astounding success of these LEGAL immigrants who broke out of their undeserved low-caste existence to take advantage of the possibilities of our capitalistic society. The answer is not to redistribute our wealth to these flawed nations, but to continue to set an example as a nation where anything is possible.
You won't have to look far for that second job. You'll get one digging holes from the new WPA that Congress is working on. Your neighbor will get a job filling holes.
Well, that's reassuring, because I'm sure the organs of the state would never do anything that they are specifically prohibited by law from doing, like running a secret prison system and torturing confessions out of people all over the world.
So you're telling me that all these lawbreakers weren't falsely arresting people until a law was passed saying they could?
Slashdot Mirror
The fact that only a few "bad apples" are affected by violent games won't stop the anti-freedom crowd. They can always trot out the "if it just saves one child, it will be worth it" hyperbole as long as we allow them to. After all, only a few "bad apples" cause harm with guns or other weapons: that doesn't stop the gun control crowd. How much freedom are we willing to give up? Eventually, all of it will be sacrificed on the altar of the state.
Well, not really. They're advocating planning the transition now instead of waiting until support ends, which will happen in 2014. That sounds really far away, but for some companies it could take that long to complete.
Not communist, although definitely socialist. It has a market economy and legislators elected by popular vote.
God forbid you get a false positive and they wipe out your machine for it. It seems like every major AV marks remote administration programs as malicious backdoors now.
You may be correct, but using Bloomberg as a good example is not something I agree with. You might as well use Jon Corzine. Bloomberg is an anti-freedom, hypocritical progressive who used the recession to push for a loosening of the mayoral term limit, making himself defacto dictator of NYC. He signed in the smoking and trans-fat bans. He is also currently involved in a-- you guessed it-- campaign finance scandal.
George Washington Bridge?
Seriously, I don't know what you're talking about. Please elucidate.
It's the one that's all rippled and burnt...
Heh heh heh... Well, I'd recommend a drum: preferably a rubber-head one that doesn't get very loud.
Your grandma is edgy!
That would make sense if the reason we wanted to stop printing phone books was because phone numbers weren't changing often, or they were decreasing in number. I would guess that phone numbers are still changing quite often even if Canada has porting regulations like the USA, and the quantity of phone numbers certainly isn't decreasing. Why I'm trying to say is that the information in phone books is already often out of date; making it even more out of date creates a new problem.
Elitism is never justified. In fact, if you've been gifted with great intelligence, humility is a great trait to acquire lest you become one of those brainiacs who thinks he can do no wrong-- and so does on a daily basis.
Murder is the only justifiable reason for hatred? I'll let the victims of theft, fraud, assault, harassment, and rape know they have to stop the hatin'.
Yeah, that's a problem, don't you think? Actually, the problem is that the government is TAKING something for nothing.
Who let Janeane Garofalo in here?
Uh... he's in there right now! He has an attorney general and director of homeland security who both admitted they hadn't gotten around to reading the Arizona immigration law. This didn't stop them from criticizing it. He has appointed several former Goldman Sachs people. He appointed his personal attorney's wife to be communications director. You'll remember Ms. Dunn as the nice lady who asked us to report anyone who spread "misinformation" to flag@whitehouse.gov. And, of course, now we find out that the White House (I won't pin it directly on the President yet-- although the law says indirect action is also felonious) offered appointments to TWO candidates if they would quit their primary races.
* In the USA, the top 25% of earners (these are households earning $66K and up-- not what most would consider "rich") pay 87% of the taxes. Those earning $32K or less essentially pay no taxes: it's less than 3%.
Oh please. He didn't steal the 2000 election, either.
We used to, when they were allowed to test on animals. There is no free lunch.
Americans want to share their wealth VOLUNTARILY, which has made us the most charitable nation in the world. It's not charity when your government spends other people's money.
I'm sorry that this is your experience, but I assure you that I have known many small and medium sized businessmen, and they are far from lazy. No one can start a business by being lazy. Execs? Maybe a few of them fooled people into thinking they are competent leaders. But they're acting like employees, not capitalists.
Frankly, the laziest people I see are the politicians, who never started their own business, spent very little time working in the private sector (if at all), but somehow think they can tell people how to run theirs. They're the ones who impose byzantine regulations on industry, promise largess to every possible special interest, foster a "victimhood" culture among minorities, and then when the welfare state fails blame it on capitalism when natural capitalism simply can't exist in this environment. When GSEs like Fannie and Freddie are holding BILLIONS in bad loans, how is that a failure of capitalism? When Barney Frank knew this back in 2003 but claimed that "Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not facing any kind of financial crisis" and opposed reform, how is that a failure of capitalism? When Sen. Dodd got a sweet loan from Countrywide even as it was cooking its books to hide the red ink, how is that a failure of capitalism? When oil companies undergo great environmental and human risk to drill miles under the ocean because the government says they can't drill on land, how is that a failure of capitalism?
He said "reveres", not "worships", you fool. A pun on "revere" involving a midnight ride would probably been funnier.
The Indian family can have their refrigerator by emigrating to the USA like many other Indian families. We joke about how every 7-Eleven is run by an Indian, but ignore the astounding success of these LEGAL immigrants who broke out of their undeserved low-caste existence to take advantage of the possibilities of our capitalistic society. The answer is not to redistribute our wealth to these flawed nations, but to continue to set an example as a nation where anything is possible.
Now I know why the green movement REALLY wants us to get rid of incandescent bulbs. Clearly, they're dangerous and could explode at any time!
No, they didn't. A child could press CTRL-A, CTRL-C to copy all the "hidden" information.
That would be TRILLIONS for health care.
You won't have to look far for that second job. You'll get one digging holes from the new WPA that Congress is working on. Your neighbor will get a job filling holes.
So you're telling me that all these lawbreakers weren't falsely arresting people until a law was passed saying they could?