This has been the favored business model of big players in this country since before the railroads. From what I can gather, it began with the canals. Monied interests get in bed with politicians and use the law to squeeze out everyone else. I think you're absolutely right. And none of us should be surprised when Amazon, whose web services host a number of government departments, and whose CEO owns one of the two major newspapers in the country, is granted an "exception."
The whole idea of (whatever they're calling it now) global warming is inextricably bound up with centralized economic planning or, at the very least, extensive economic regulation; and in many cases it goes beyond that with the advocating of international boards that threaten national sovereignty. Furthermore, many of these proposed treaties are seen by their opponents—and not without good cause—as a way of stifling rich, developed countries while favoring un-developed or developing countries. They're seen as a political punishing of the "Great Satan." This is what people can't get past.
So, what! The Cubans can just put the resources of their mighty socialist republic to work and manufacture all the food and medicine the people need. Isn't that the way it works?
I think national standards are the entire problem. We shouldn't have national standards. For one, we're a nation of some 300-plus million people distributed across 50 states, with varying geography, cultures, industries, and so forth. Why would anyone think one size should fit all? It's funny how there is so much talk about "diversity" all the time and how great it is, but heaven forbid there should be diversity in education in this country. The federal government has no business in education. But apart from all that, centralization in a country like this poses another problem. It gives a single pressure point for every kind of political or ideological fad or bent. Anyone with an axe to grind, a chip on his or her shoulder, or just a run-of-the-mill "I know better than thou" complex has but a single pressure point to grab hold of to bend the country to his or her will. Today you may like who is behind this push for a de facto national curriculum. But tomorrow you may not be. What happens then?
I'm for competition, diversity, innovation, and freedom. The Common Core is antithetical to all that.
I hope I'm remembering this correctly, but haven't some people challenged the National Security Letters, only to have the FBI rescind them before the case comes to court, presumably because they fear having a court rule them unconstitutional?
I want to be sympathetic to your sentiment, but there is no one outside of the United States threatening our freedom. That's a fact. There is no one in the military fighting for our freedom. Granted, they may stand ready to defend our freedom, should a foreign threat materialize, but that's a different story.
Sadly, the real threat to our freedom is from within. It's from people in government who fancy themselves on the side of the angels and who think it's okay to bend or break the rules—a.k.a. the Constitution—to defend the "homeland." They're setting up the legal framework and law enforcement infrastructure that will completely obliterate the United States of America for good. What will be left is lines on a map claiming a heritage it has no right to.
It's not simply that they're "just doing their job." Some of them justify what they do that way. But some of them have convinced themselves that they're on the side of the angels. They catch "bad guys"—that's the simpleton phrase they use. So, anything they do is okay, because the ends justify the means.
What?! Do you like bad guys or something?
The average person cannot integrate anything so abstract and complicated as the need for constitutional restraints: meaning, why government power needs to be restrained, even if in the short run of particular cases the "inconvenience" of such restraints lets the "bad guys" get away. The only thing the average person is able to digest is so-called "patriotism," the fight of "good guys versus bad guys" (in this case, literally, cops and robbers), and the kind of chauvinism of association that allows them to believe that they and the other great bunch of guys on the job are hard at work doing good.
This kind of mentality can accommodate any kind of political circumstances just as happily as any other—America, Iran, Cuba, the old Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, or what have you. That's what's so scary.
But for the fact that "blaming the victim" is currently considered a mean-spirited social faux pas, I would point out to you where your friend went wrong.
The sad thing is that when one individual decides to blow the lid off the whole thing, a good number of Americans insist that "the law is the law" and that the first thing we need to do is get hold of him and hold him accountable. I say, let's start with the people in charge who are really putting this republic at risk and breaking the law every single day, from 9 to 5, and patting themselves on the back because, you know, they're catching "bad guys."
When we're done with them, then how about we turn our attention to Monsieur Snowden.
Setting up the infrastructure for a total surveillance state is simply beyond the pale. What Snowden has done is what any true American should have done. The machine that government is setting up must be stopped dead in its tracks while there is still time, or there will be no stopping it. And there will be no United States of America after that, only a spot on the map infringing a trademark. Snowden is a true patriot.
If King George had had the NSA, you'd all be speaking proper English.
Oh, yeah. He's living the life of Riley, in exile, over in Russia—where the toilets don't even flush. Surely, this was all a career move.
Re:Snowden may be right - but he still broke the l
on
Why Snowden Did Right
·
· Score: 1
I find it remarkable that people fault Snowden for breaking the law but give a pass to the many in government, from the president and the last president on down, who break the law every day by operating unlawful, unconstitutional, un-American programs that put this entire nation and everything it stands for at risk in a way that no terrorist can. Let Obama stand trial. Let Bush. Let Cheney. Let the lawyers and cabinet members with their "secret interpretation" of the Patriot Act. Let Dianne Feinstein for her round-heeled sycophancy towards our intelligence agencies. Let that bastard Hayden and everyone else at the NSA. Let them all stand trial first.
Get your priorities straight. Snowden should stand trial no more than George Washington.
Let me guess...YOU live in the nation with the trustworthy government [...]
What's your point, seriously? Who cares! Look, I'm an American. I really don't give a shit what other countries do, and I don't care if they want to criticize us about this. It's really neither here nor there. Our government is doing something very wrong, something that undermines the whole American Experiment—irrevocably. That's the real topic of conversation here.
Frankly, with the way things are in this country, I hope it begins to pinch our wallets. It's the only way most Americans, from the corporate bigwigs to the politicians to the straphangers and soccer moms in the suburbs, ever take anything seriously. People need to wake up.
The question is, is the damage done greater than the damage prevented.
In a free country, such Utilitarian arguments take place only within the ruling principle of liberty. We don't weigh the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments against some kind of first year philosophy student's bullshit session. We've established a constitutional framework for very good reasons.
Those familiar with the C programming language will recognize that the first goto fail is bound to the if statement immediately preceding it; the second is executed unconditionally.
Sorry, but it needs to be said: this is sloppy, he-man coding. Is there a problem with using brackets? Is it your carpal tunnel syndrome? Are you charged by the keystroke?
I just left a job where we produced POS and back office software for specialty retailers and saw the same thing. The lock-in is just incredible when you're running a nationwide chain with X-number of registers. I think a customer was running Windows 98 on a box with 128 MB of RAM. In fact, if anything you worry about customers looking to upgrade, because if they're going to have to spend all the money to buy new hardware, they're going to reevaluate their software as well, and perhaps choose another vendor.
Slashdot Mirror
This has been the favored business model of big players in this country since before the railroads. From what I can gather, it began with the canals. Monied interests get in bed with politicians and use the law to squeeze out everyone else. I think you're absolutely right. And none of us should be surprised when Amazon, whose web services host a number of government departments, and whose CEO owns one of the two major newspapers in the country, is granted an "exception."
This is how the crooked game is played.
The whole idea of (whatever they're calling it now) global warming is inextricably bound up with centralized economic planning or, at the very least, extensive economic regulation; and in many cases it goes beyond that with the advocating of international boards that threaten national sovereignty. Furthermore, many of these proposed treaties are seen by their opponents—and not without good cause—as a way of stifling rich, developed countries while favoring un-developed or developing countries. They're seen as a political punishing of the "Great Satan." This is what people can't get past.
Imagine if Pinky and the Brain had possessed such capabilities! They could not have been stopped.
What's stopping them is socialism.
So, what! The Cubans can just put the resources of their mighty socialist republic to work and manufacture all the food and medicine the people need. Isn't that the way it works?
Who knew that Bible-thumping Republicans were farming Sweden!
You do know that the Common Core has only begun with English and math standards, and that social studies and science standards are next, right?
I think national standards are the entire problem. We shouldn't have national standards. For one, we're a nation of some 300-plus million people distributed across 50 states, with varying geography, cultures, industries, and so forth. Why would anyone think one size should fit all? It's funny how there is so much talk about "diversity" all the time and how great it is, but heaven forbid there should be diversity in education in this country. The federal government has no business in education. But apart from all that, centralization in a country like this poses another problem. It gives a single pressure point for every kind of political or ideological fad or bent. Anyone with an axe to grind, a chip on his or her shoulder, or just a run-of-the-mill "I know better than thou" complex has but a single pressure point to grab hold of to bend the country to his or her will. Today you may like who is behind this push for a de facto national curriculum. But tomorrow you may not be. What happens then?
I'm for competition, diversity, innovation, and freedom. The Common Core is antithetical to all that.
I hope I'm remembering this correctly, but haven't some people challenged the National Security Letters, only to have the FBI rescind them before the case comes to court, presumably because they fear having a court rule them unconstitutional?
I want to be sympathetic to your sentiment, but there is no one outside of the United States threatening our freedom. That's a fact. There is no one in the military fighting for our freedom. Granted, they may stand ready to defend our freedom, should a foreign threat materialize, but that's a different story.
Sadly, the real threat to our freedom is from within. It's from people in government who fancy themselves on the side of the angels and who think it's okay to bend or break the rules—a.k.a. the Constitution—to defend the "homeland." They're setting up the legal framework and law enforcement infrastructure that will completely obliterate the United States of America for good. What will be left is lines on a map claiming a heritage it has no right to.
It's not simply that they're "just doing their job." Some of them justify what they do that way. But some of them have convinced themselves that they're on the side of the angels. They catch "bad guys"—that's the simpleton phrase they use. So, anything they do is okay, because the ends justify the means.
What?! Do you like bad guys or something?
The average person cannot integrate anything so abstract and complicated as the need for constitutional restraints: meaning, why government power needs to be restrained, even if in the short run of particular cases the "inconvenience" of such restraints lets the "bad guys" get away. The only thing the average person is able to digest is so-called "patriotism," the fight of "good guys versus bad guys" (in this case, literally, cops and robbers), and the kind of chauvinism of association that allows them to believe that they and the other great bunch of guys on the job are hard at work doing good.
This kind of mentality can accommodate any kind of political circumstances just as happily as any other—America, Iran, Cuba, the old Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, or what have you. That's what's so scary.
But for the fact that "blaming the victim" is currently considered a mean-spirited social faux pas, I would point out to you where your friend went wrong.
You must be new around here. Let me be the first to welcome you to the United States of America.
How about this? If it's secret it's not a trial.
The sad thing is that when one individual decides to blow the lid off the whole thing, a good number of Americans insist that "the law is the law" and that the first thing we need to do is get hold of him and hold him accountable. I say, let's start with the people in charge who are really putting this republic at risk and breaking the law every single day, from 9 to 5, and patting themselves on the back because, you know, they're catching "bad guys."
When we're done with them, then how about we turn our attention to Monsieur Snowden.
"The price of liberty is eternal vigilance."
Setting up the infrastructure for a total surveillance state is simply beyond the pale. What Snowden has done is what any true American should have done. The machine that government is setting up must be stopped dead in its tracks while there is still time, or there will be no stopping it. And there will be no United States of America after that, only a spot on the map infringing a trademark. Snowden is a true patriot.
If King George had had the NSA, you'd all be speaking proper English.
Oh, yeah. He's living the life of Riley, in exile, over in Russia—where the toilets don't even flush. Surely, this was all a career move.
I find it remarkable that people fault Snowden for breaking the law but give a pass to the many in government, from the president and the last president on down, who break the law every day by operating unlawful, unconstitutional, un-American programs that put this entire nation and everything it stands for at risk in a way that no terrorist can. Let Obama stand trial. Let Bush. Let Cheney. Let the lawyers and cabinet members with their "secret interpretation" of the Patriot Act. Let Dianne Feinstein for her round-heeled sycophancy towards our intelligence agencies. Let that bastard Hayden and everyone else at the NSA. Let them all stand trial first.
Get your priorities straight. Snowden should stand trial no more than George Washington.
What's your point, seriously? Who cares! Look, I'm an American. I really don't give a shit what other countries do, and I don't care if they want to criticize us about this. It's really neither here nor there. Our government is doing something very wrong, something that undermines the whole American Experiment—irrevocably. That's the real topic of conversation here.
Frankly, with the way things are in this country, I hope it begins to pinch our wallets. It's the only way most Americans, from the corporate bigwigs to the politicians to the straphangers and soccer moms in the suburbs, ever take anything seriously. People need to wake up.
In a free country, such Utilitarian arguments take place only within the ruling principle of liberty. We don't weigh the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments against some kind of first year philosophy student's bullshit session. We've established a constitutional framework for very good reasons.
goto fail;
goto fail;
Sorry, but it needs to be said: this is sloppy, he-man coding. Is there a problem with using brackets? Is it your carpal tunnel syndrome? Are you charged by the keystroke?
This is how mistakes happen. For shame!
Tell me, if you lacked free will, what would you do with evidence?
Next on the agenda, we clone Jem'Hadar and become galactic overlords.
I just left a job where we produced POS and back office software for specialty retailers and saw the same thing. The lock-in is just incredible when you're running a nationwide chain with X-number of registers. I think a customer was running Windows 98 on a box with 128 MB of RAM. In fact, if anything you worry about customers looking to upgrade, because if they're going to have to spend all the money to buy new hardware, they're going to reevaluate their software as well, and perhaps choose another vendor.