Not entirely. See the work of John Nash. The initial idea was how to approach a pack of girls in the bar. The only way everyone gets laid is if everyone ignores the obvious gorgeous blonde.
Hopefully some soviets will do the same. May all those complicit in domestic spying and surveillance get what is coming to them while this man lives to see freedom and the rewards he rightly deserves for remaining loyal to The People of the United States of America.
Protesting your government isn't protesting against your country, protesting against the POTUS is protesting the government. But you have the right to protest the government in this country which is the point here.
Making the argument that protesting against the actions of our government isn't a protest against it carries the strong implication that people don't have the right to do so.
As for the king part, you seem to be suggesting because the proposal was raised by an officer that officer was the entire basis for it. That is incorrect.
If you are protesting the local board, you are protesting government, if you are protesting the POTUS you are protesting government. He is no longer a person but rather an office. Those acting otherwise have either been selling or buying a bill of goods from someone who wants you act and support actions in accord to how you feel about the individual who holds the office rather than consider positions with regard to the office of the POTUS regardless of occupant both in the past and the future.
In any case, it is kind of a weak argument. Are you trying to suggest that protesting against the government isn't the right of the people? This entire point is a spit in the eye of democracy. The government works for us and this undermines the orders we've given it via our Constitution.
Granting philosophical charity to others is being a decent human being. Taking ownership of the responsibility for your own feelings is being a decent human being. Demanding everyone else cater to your whims and personal emotional baggage is being a douche nozzle.
Like I said I was a kid and a poor kid. Realistically I could have bought in at any time in the last decade but at the IPO stage investors had almost no knowledge what linux was, even the small boost it got when it went to IPO was mostly dotcom bubble. Now the cat is out of the bag.
I didn't say he represented all, he heads all. His assistant takes leadership of the senate, he is empowered to reject all acts of the congress, he is immune to legal prosecution and can parse out that immunity as he pleases via pardon. The supreme court is selected by him. The President isn't all powerful but the role was created when George Washington refused to be king outright and he is the boss of everyone in government, including the congress and supreme court. He's the politician that everyone gets to vote on.
The idea was to limit the power of the entire federal government with the people and their Constitution reigning supreme. This was so much the idea that the first attempt produced a federal government too weak to function. The current federal government and lack of respect for the Constitution is the result of short sighted people letting lawmakers lower the bar and ignore the Constitution while granting themselves more and more power. Usually they've used heart tugging causes and anything that riles people up to do it, save the children, the war on drugs, free the slaves, protect the poor children, immigration, etc for the sort of sociopaths who seek out these positions of power they are all just tools.
It doesn't matter which way you are tugged on these issues, their goal was to distract you by dividing you. Whichever bill or policy wins out you can be confident it contains provisions to consolidate power and strip freedoms. Sure there are exceptions among the sociopaths, they think the ends justify the means and drinking the kool-aid the same as everyone else.
Why do you think any act of congress is a few thousand pages long?
Red hat has hired and payed a huge number of people to develop and contribute to open source code. They've made massive contributions to Linux and are a key part of why it has become what it is today. Fedora/RHEL/CentOS may not be your favorite flavor but the simple fact is that in order to compete against them your favorite flavor adopted things made by them and had to compete with their usability. There are dozens of things in your home right now which are better because of Red Hat's contribution, not to mention all the things you use online.
I'm not rich because of Red Hat but I have gotten paid. Sadly I was a broke teenager when their IPO happened and the people I strongly advised to get in on it didn't listen.
"First of all, "anti-Trump" protests are not "anti-Government" protests."
Yes, actually they are. He is the President and the head of the United States Government even if only during his term.
"Secondly, it's not very democratic to take sides against the People. A lot of those smart people at the Pentagon study a whole lot of history and should know the inevitable negative consequences of such policies."
Agreed. The Constitution outranks the three branches, including the military and the President and the people outrank the Constitution. If only people had stuck behind the Constitution when doing so conflicted with expediency and their personal agendas the government might have remembered that.
You won't know why Netflix starts buffering. Also the priorities change with government. That is something a cable company would want to throttle not government.
"I know right. Just last night the police busted down my door for using too much bandwidth."
Too much bandwidth? You are really obsessed with the least concerning possibilities of a lack of net neutrality. What about censoring news, altering it in flight, censorship under the guise of protecting children, blocking crime, decency and blocking porn, etc
"Of course they COULD, but it would be illegal for them to do it."
Actually it is illegal for the federal government to do it, it is not necessarily illegal for local government to do it especially if using public infrastructure. The government needs no warrant to search your trash or check your water lines. They can act as a man in the middle by connecting not to devices in your home where they need a warrant but to the public owned infrastructure one hop up.
"Why would my city care what I post to the Internet?"
Because you pissed off the local politician or cop, because you are stuck in an ultra-religious community forcing "values" laws down your throat like blue laws, decency laws etc, because you keep staging protests in the public square and they are trying to monitor your involvement with the next "occupy wall street." Maybe they just decide it would be more productive for everyone to shut down access between 10am and 2pm for the sake of the community. Local communities aren't exactly known for respecting freedoms and they pass statutes which run counter to protections in the Constitution all the time, many of which courts have upheld.
Agreed. But what do I know, I'm apparently -1 Flamebait or Redundant for daring to suggest we should be wary of this as a future possibility whether we agree with the FCC crap or not. It isn't necessarily about what is happening now. What about 10 years from now when you aren't looking or things slowly introduced over the next 100 years?
Some genies are very hard to put back in the bottle.
You won't know. Period. So no, you can't elect a new anybody and police aren't elected. Do you have any idea how much crooked crap actually goes on at the city/county/and even state level that people never hear about?
Exactly, the network should be a set of dumb links with the only intelligence in public and open source protocols with no awareness of source and destination corporate or personal identity performing routing and redundancy. Nobody, including the ISP whether it is corporate or government, should have access to restrict it in any way whatsoever.
"Provably wrong as disempowered government means people are at risk of individuals with an agenda directly impeding my freedom."
Not at all, you can create strong enforcement powers which are very specific, require transparency, have checks and balances, and most importantly very little wiggle room. Further, small offenses and limitations on freedom enacted at large scale have a much more subtle and dangerous impact than overt direct action by an individual.
You seem to be ignoring context, like the story and the post I replied to.
If you feel that government censorship being a bad thing that needs to be stopped isn't a given there really isn't anything further to discuss. But in a country that holds freedom of speech and expression with the people and not their government as sovereign it is a given. If it can happen, measures must be taken to prevent it. It isn't just about today, laws can stand for hundreds of years or even longer, you don't make a law for today you make laws with the intention they should work and protect the sovereignty and freedom of the people from oppressive government even hundreds of years from now.
Maybe wherever you are from didn't have to crawl out from under the thumb of an oppressive tyrannical regime but ours did.
"Police get no better access in municipal nets, arguably it may even be less access. Harder to threaten a government with new regulations."
Get no better access? They literally just walk up and do what they want without supervision. Who exactly is it you think stands between police and access at the local level other than self-enforcement?
The police come up with some rationale to explain why they are allowed, choose to believe themselves, and it only gets questioned if they get caught. Even then it could go either way in court and the worst that happens is the court says no.
Slashdot Mirror
"There's also the fact that pretty much every implementation of communism was FORCIBLY IMPOSED, rather than allowed to grow organically."
That is only true in government. Almost every open source project is an example of communism not only working but working well.
Not entirely. See the work of John Nash. The initial idea was how to approach a pack of girls in the bar. The only way everyone gets laid is if everyone ignores the obvious gorgeous blonde.
Hopefully some soviets will do the same. May all those complicit in domestic spying and surveillance get what is coming to them while this man lives to see freedom and the rewards he rightly deserves for remaining loyal to The People of the United States of America.
Protesting your government isn't protesting against your country, protesting against the POTUS is protesting the government. But you have the right to protest the government in this country which is the point here.
Making the argument that protesting against the actions of our government isn't a protest against it carries the strong implication that people don't have the right to do so.
"had he declared himself one, the revolutionary war would have continued"
Okay, and who would have been fighting the colonial army under Washington?
That's true. The biggest problem is that the class members can't afford to fight these giant corporations on their own dime.
A bunch of quotes and addendums to my comments which added nothing tangible. The POTUS is the head of state.
https://www.quora.com/Why-did-George-Washington-turn-down-an-offer-to-become-a-king
As for the king part, you seem to be suggesting because the proposal was raised by an officer that officer was the entire basis for it. That is incorrect.
If you are protesting the local board, you are protesting government, if you are protesting the POTUS you are protesting government. He is no longer a person but rather an office. Those acting otherwise have either been selling or buying a bill of goods from someone who wants you act and support actions in accord to how you feel about the individual who holds the office rather than consider positions with regard to the office of the POTUS regardless of occupant both in the past and the future.
In any case, it is kind of a weak argument. Are you trying to suggest that protesting against the government isn't the right of the people? This entire point is a spit in the eye of democracy. The government works for us and this undermines the orders we've given it via our Constitution.
Granting philosophical charity to others is being a decent human being. Taking ownership of the responsibility for your own feelings is being a decent human being. Demanding everyone else cater to your whims and personal emotional baggage is being a douche nozzle.
Like I said I was a kid and a poor kid. Realistically I could have bought in at any time in the last decade but at the IPO stage investors had almost no knowledge what linux was, even the small boost it got when it went to IPO was mostly dotcom bubble. Now the cat is out of the bag.
If you are protesting his spray tan you are right, if you are protesting the actions of The POTUS you are wrong.
Doh! payed = paid, though it might sound more stylish as it is.
I didn't say he represented all, he heads all. His assistant takes leadership of the senate, he is empowered to reject all acts of the congress, he is immune to legal prosecution and can parse out that immunity as he pleases via pardon. The supreme court is selected by him. The President isn't all powerful but the role was created when George Washington refused to be king outright and he is the boss of everyone in government, including the congress and supreme court. He's the politician that everyone gets to vote on.
The idea was to limit the power of the entire federal government with the people and their Constitution reigning supreme. This was so much the idea that the first attempt produced a federal government too weak to function. The current federal government and lack of respect for the Constitution is the result of short sighted people letting lawmakers lower the bar and ignore the Constitution while granting themselves more and more power. Usually they've used heart tugging causes and anything that riles people up to do it, save the children, the war on drugs, free the slaves, protect the poor children, immigration, etc for the sort of sociopaths who seek out these positions of power they are all just tools.
It doesn't matter which way you are tugged on these issues, their goal was to distract you by dividing you. Whichever bill or policy wins out you can be confident it contains provisions to consolidate power and strip freedoms. Sure there are exceptions among the sociopaths, they think the ends justify the means and drinking the kool-aid the same as everyone else.
Why do you think any act of congress is a few thousand pages long?
Red hat has hired and payed a huge number of people to develop and contribute to open source code. They've made massive contributions to Linux and are a key part of why it has become what it is today. Fedora/RHEL/CentOS may not be your favorite flavor but the simple fact is that in order to compete against them your favorite flavor adopted things made by them and had to compete with their usability. There are dozens of things in your home right now which are better because of Red Hat's contribution, not to mention all the things you use online.
I'm not rich because of Red Hat but I have gotten paid. Sadly I was a broke teenager when their IPO happened and the people I strongly advised to get in on it didn't listen.
Whats the term limit for a leader protected by the army?
"First of all, "anti-Trump" protests are not "anti-Government" protests."
Yes, actually they are. He is the President and the head of the United States Government even if only during his term.
"Secondly, it's not very democratic to take sides against the People. A lot of those smart people at the Pentagon study a whole lot of history and should know the inevitable negative consequences of such policies."
Agreed. The Constitution outranks the three branches, including the military and the President and the people outrank the Constitution. If only people had stuck behind the Constitution when doing so conflicted with expediency and their personal agendas the government might have remembered that.
"in favor of clocks that are also made of MEMS silicon"
Otherwise known as cheaper and less accurate clocks.
You won't know why Netflix starts buffering. Also the priorities change with government. That is something a cable company would want to throttle not government.
"I know right. Just last night the police busted down my door for using too much bandwidth."
Too much bandwidth? You are really obsessed with the least concerning possibilities of a lack of net neutrality. What about censoring news, altering it in flight, censorship under the guise of protecting children, blocking crime, decency and blocking porn, etc
"I worry much more about a private corporation censoring my speech since it's not illegal for them to do it."
This is a false dichotomy. You don't have to support either being in a position to legally censor your speech.
"Of course they COULD, but it would be illegal for them to do it."
Actually it is illegal for the federal government to do it, it is not necessarily illegal for local government to do it especially if using public infrastructure. The government needs no warrant to search your trash or check your water lines. They can act as a man in the middle by connecting not to devices in your home where they need a warrant but to the public owned infrastructure one hop up.
"Why would my city care what I post to the Internet?"
Because you pissed off the local politician or cop, because you are stuck in an ultra-religious community forcing "values" laws down your throat like blue laws, decency laws etc, because you keep staging protests in the public square and they are trying to monitor your involvement with the next "occupy wall street." Maybe they just decide it would be more productive for everyone to shut down access between 10am and 2pm for the sake of the community. Local communities aren't exactly known for respecting freedoms and they pass statutes which run counter to protections in the Constitution all the time, many of which courts have upheld.
Agreed. But what do I know, I'm apparently -1 Flamebait or Redundant for daring to suggest we should be wary of this as a future possibility whether we agree with the FCC crap or not. It isn't necessarily about what is happening now. What about 10 years from now when you aren't looking or things slowly introduced over the next 100 years?
Some genies are very hard to put back in the bottle.
You won't know. Period. So no, you can't elect a new anybody and police aren't elected. Do you have any idea how much crooked crap actually goes on at the city/county/and even state level that people never hear about?
Exactly, the network should be a set of dumb links with the only intelligence in public and open source protocols with no awareness of source and destination corporate or personal identity performing routing and redundancy. Nobody, including the ISP whether it is corporate or government, should have access to restrict it in any way whatsoever.
"Provably wrong as disempowered government means people are at risk of individuals with an agenda directly impeding my freedom."
Not at all, you can create strong enforcement powers which are very specific, require transparency, have checks and balances, and most importantly very little wiggle room. Further, small offenses and limitations on freedom enacted at large scale have a much more subtle and dangerous impact than overt direct action by an individual.
You forgot to elucidate your reasoning.
You seem to be ignoring context, like the story and the post I replied to.
If you feel that government censorship being a bad thing that needs to be stopped isn't a given there really isn't anything further to discuss. But in a country that holds freedom of speech and expression with the people and not their government as sovereign it is a given. If it can happen, measures must be taken to prevent it. It isn't just about today, laws can stand for hundreds of years or even longer, you don't make a law for today you make laws with the intention they should work and protect the sovereignty and freedom of the people from oppressive government even hundreds of years from now.
Maybe wherever you are from didn't have to crawl out from under the thumb of an oppressive tyrannical regime but ours did.
"Police get no better access in municipal nets, arguably it may even be less access. Harder to threaten a government with new regulations."
Get no better access? They literally just walk up and do what they want without supervision. Who exactly is it you think stands between police and access at the local level other than self-enforcement?
The police come up with some rationale to explain why they are allowed, choose to believe themselves, and it only gets questioned if they get caught. Even then it could go either way in court and the worst that happens is the court says no.