If that's what you want to believe that's fine, but don't go claiming it represents a mainstream belief. Parents having no authority over minor children is not in any way consistent with any significant group of libs, and your description seems to place it under the beliefs of anarchists. Perhaps you're just another one of those extremely biased leftists who keep accusing libertarians of being anarchists?
We need *more* people to be independent thinks who don't strictly adhere to their political parties philosophy. To stand up and say 'hey, this is where we're wrong' and break from the party in pursuit of common sense and doing the morally correct thing. It would be a much better world. So it doesn't bother me one bit to disagree with other libertarians and say according to my interpretation of the philosophy, not requiring vaccinations fall under serious abuse, like beating and raping, that laws about are acceptable. Libertarianism isn't anarchy that opposes all laws, there's a place for police power, it's just that in many places it goes too far.
We have laws for that. I (and most libertarians) certainly don't support abolishing laws against seriously beating or neglecting your kids,...or apparently giving them drugs and excessive alcohol (?); but we're not talking about illegal abusive conduct here, just video games.
A libertarian would say parenting is the responsibility of parents, not the market. If Steam wants to offer parental controls, that's certainly their choice, but they should be under no such obligation. And perhaps your nieces parents, who I'd imagine know the girl much better than you, have determined that she is mature enough to play some or all 18+ titles? As a left social libertarian myself, I wouldn't want Steam to try to second guess parental discretion like that.
The entire concept of copyright is to grant limited protection in pursuit of enhancing the public domain. Creators rights are balanced with the rights of the public; it's not for their exclusive benefit to do whatever they want in perpetuity (or at least that wasn't the original intent). The trade-off that if they're not selling it, it loses protection, is entirely in line with the purpose of creating an economic incentive to *create*. Copyright maximalists like you are wallowing in unmitigated greed. If you're done realizing the economic benefit of the limited protection of copyright, damn right the public domain is morally entitled to that work, especially if it's older than 28 years (which the games here most are), even if corrupt legislators have allowed the original limited term to be changed to effectively unlimited.
This is not specific to the current administration, and in fact there's a move afoot to remove, or "drain", the current situation, or "swamp", of people who abuse the system. Especially of people who abuse the system for political gain.
Was having a bad day, needed that laugh. Trump draining the swamp, rofl, have you seen his appointees? ESPECIALLY of people who abuse it for political gain? You Trump supporters are really living in your own world.
This is a serious breach of trust in government, and while I've generally been giving Ajit Pai a pass because of TDS, this is where we can reasonably be outraged and call for his removal.
Really, this is what did it? The whole net neutrality thing, just TDS? The made up condition where people keep calling Trump on his bullshit instead of letting it go? Anyone who says 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' has no credibility and puts politics ahead of intellectual honesty.
We're talking about proprietary code; companies that pay to host their closed-source project privately. What's stopping them from doing it now is that they don't have the source sitting on their servers.
Anyone who can look at all the issues surrounding Windows 10, tricking people into upgrading, outright forcing upgrading, forcing updates, forcing reboots, forcing telemetry even on Enterprise, evading hosts file and firewalls rules blocking it, resetting settings, and claim that their abhorrent behavior is all in the past, is out of their damn mind. They've never worked harder at abusing their userbase.
I'm using FF56 still, will eventually switch to Pale Moon. If a particular page doesn't work, I just load it in Chrome.
Stubborn? Maybe a little. After all, I still write desktop utility apps in VB6, using tons of tricks, low-level APIs and COM interfaces to implement modern features, because I'm mad about.NET.
Ok a lot stubborn but with full justification, I shall resist the Chromification and XUL removal in Firefox until the day the very last workaround fails and the internet becomes unusable!
Well some people care more about the features their plugins add that don't yet exist post-57, or in most cases will never exist because of WebExtensions limits Mozilla refuses to allow workarounds for, than they care that pages load in 2 seconds instead of 4 seconds, sometimes. Their arrogance in killing off a large part of the plugin capabilities that made Firefox great, continually dumbing down the interface and copying Chrome, and telling the large majority of their userbase opposed to this 'fuck off you'll want what we tell you to want', makes the dumping richly deserved.
All I said applies to Harris but yeah I think you're right and I was thinking of Nancy Pelosi, not Elizabeth Warren, as the other name I wanted to specifically call out. My bad.
Doing everything possible to support their rich CEO donors in their quest to fuck over people and the environment in pursuit of ever more profit.
What, you think they actually gave a damn about economic principles, fiscal conservatism, or family values? Please. Those are just tools they use to trick half the electorate into consistently voting against their own self-interest.
So you looked at Trump and thought "here's an honest, non-corrupt person"? And you guys wonder why everyone is insulting your intelligence... geez. His unabashed corruption in his dealings was open knowledge, what would ever possess you to think he'd get in office and not put Clinton's corruption (not denying that she was corrupt too) to shame?
I'd love to see Sanders get the nomination, but all signs point to the Democrats doubling down on their failed strategy and nominating another anti-civil rights, pro-surveillance, pro-war, identity politics obsessed woman like Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren, then proceed to imply only a racist/sexist would oppose them, and then wonder what happened when once again voters stay home and don't vote for anyone (the direct cause of Trump's win) again in record numbers.
Which is why I suggested amending or abolishing it. That some (but not all) of its original purpose is impossible (self defense, and an armed populace resisting foreign invasion working with our military, and hunting, and sport shooting still are), that doesn't mean you get to declare the whole thing void by ignoring it or re-writing history such that its other purposes aren't protected still.
Worse, the CDC guidelines are a total joke. There's no medical justification at all. It's nearly identical to the wish-list of restrictions the DEA ODC agents authored in a draft proposal. And most doctors feel compelled to follow its "anything less than screaming and bedridden is pain relief enough, until you hit the cap, then as long as the pain won't give them a heart attack let them scream" advice.
I still haven't seen any evidence that contradicts the 1% iatrogenic addiction rate either. Most addicts started with non-medical use and sought more, or were already abusing other drugs. There was no mass of drug naive people getting hooked, and whatever issue was there was addressed by not giving out 30-day scripts in the ER, and never should have effected long-term pain patients.
Then, they're even putting out propaganda studies that have conclusions like "Opiates no better than Tylenol!" because the highest dose they used was 5mg of hydrocodone.
It's horrible that thousands of people are left to suffer in extreme pain (or kill themselves, or risk killing themselves with street drugs) because they can't find a doctor that won't follow the DEA/CDC torture program, but I can't blame your wife at all.
It's our handling of the opiate crisis that is to blame. People were cut off or drastically reduced, abusers and legit pain patients alike, from their doctor-prescribed opiates with a known dose. The black market was there to meet that demand. Heroin ODs started going up, the demand was so strong fentanyl and its analogs appeared on the scene, causing a massive spike in ODs. The large majority of OD deaths could have been prevented by dealing with overprescribing in a way other than forcing people into the black market. It caused the OD spike, and on top of it countless people now suffer in pain or kill themselves when they were doing just fine before.
I don't agree with using it to try and edit the human genome to make taller offspring, or blue eyes, or 15 inch ding-dongs; but to cure a genetic disease... I think that's wonderful.
Can we define stupidity as genetic disease? Just look at the consequences of it...
We already disqualify the mentally ill. And if you look at the intentions of the 2nd, objectively, the restrictions we already have in place are already in profound contradiction of it, mostly fully reasonably, but let's not kid ourselves here: The intent was that the militia, composed automatically of all able bodied men, of which personal gun ownership was a requirement, would engage in military combat, with all the weapons of war, against invaders or an out of control domestic tyranny. This is the whole point here, you're trying to revise history by claiming the right is what you want it to be rather than what it is, completely divorced from what it actually means. This is incredibly damaging to our other rights. The proper way to deal with the 2nd is amend or abolish, not try to re-write history and pretend it's essentially void.
The "militia" in the time of the founders consisted of all able-bodied men. You were automatically in the militia. And expected to bring your own gun when the called up. Thus, the individual right was inherently a requirement for the formation of the militia. Also, if you read the history behind it, defense against tyranny was absolutely a consideration.
You're not going to achieve reform by lying about things.
Neither gun stores nor criminals are likely to sell guns to school children. (Yep, even your gang members have morals, they just differs from what the law says.)
Most of the school shooters are at least mid to late teens; sure they won't sell to little kids (usually) but older teens have no trouble on the black market when they look like they could easily be 18.
The issue is a gun culture that makes it acceptable to store guns in a way that every curious child knows how to get hold of dads guns.
There's no scenario under which that's preventable for kids old enough to go shoot up their school short of off-site storage, though better storage would help with accidental deaths for little kids.
Violence as a deterrent doesn't work that well if the aggressor doesn't expect to get out of it alive to begin with.
And that's part of why more gun control won't be effective against school shooters. They're so determined they're planning on giving their life for it, but not so determined they couldn't track down a black market gun? The more legal sales are restricted, the larger the black market will grow. One thing other countries with bans didn't have was hundreds of millions in circulation already; and there's just no way a confiscation program would happen here, not in the lifetime of anyone alive today. We need to focus on our mental health problem, and find a better, more accurate way to identify and help kids going down that road long before they decide to kill.
Well if you don't like it, amend or abolish the 2nd Amendment. Seriously, that's a good idea, do it.
But in the mean time, people need to stop pretending that ignoring and gutting the intent of it doesn't lay the groundwork for even more gutting and ignoring of the other, more popular rights.
Since a school suspended a 2nd grader just for chewing his poptart into the shape of a gun, an absurd decision upheld in court, I can't imagine anything that would confuse the recognition would end up well for the student. It's the world of Zero Tolerance [for common sense].
Slashdot Mirror
If that's what you want to believe that's fine, but don't go claiming it represents a mainstream belief. Parents having no authority over minor children is not in any way consistent with any significant group of libs, and your description seems to place it under the beliefs of anarchists. Perhaps you're just another one of those extremely biased leftists who keep accusing libertarians of being anarchists?
We need *more* people to be independent thinks who don't strictly adhere to their political parties philosophy. To stand up and say 'hey, this is where we're wrong' and break from the party in pursuit of common sense and doing the morally correct thing. It would be a much better world. So it doesn't bother me one bit to disagree with other libertarians and say according to my interpretation of the philosophy, not requiring vaccinations fall under serious abuse, like beating and raping, that laws about are acceptable. Libertarianism isn't anarchy that opposes all laws, there's a place for police power, it's just that in many places it goes too far.
We have laws for that. I (and most libertarians) certainly don't support abolishing laws against seriously beating or neglecting your kids, ...or apparently giving them drugs and excessive alcohol (?); but we're not talking about illegal abusive conduct here, just video games.
A libertarian would say parenting is the responsibility of parents, not the market. If Steam wants to offer parental controls, that's certainly their choice, but they should be under no such obligation. And perhaps your nieces parents, who I'd imagine know the girl much better than you, have determined that she is mature enough to play some or all 18+ titles? As a left social libertarian myself, I wouldn't want Steam to try to second guess parental discretion like that.
The entire concept of copyright is to grant limited protection in pursuit of enhancing the public domain. Creators rights are balanced with the rights of the public; it's not for their exclusive benefit to do whatever they want in perpetuity (or at least that wasn't the original intent). The trade-off that if they're not selling it, it loses protection, is entirely in line with the purpose of creating an economic incentive to *create*. Copyright maximalists like you are wallowing in unmitigated greed. If you're done realizing the economic benefit of the limited protection of copyright, damn right the public domain is morally entitled to that work, especially if it's older than 28 years (which the games here most are), even if corrupt legislators have allowed the original limited term to be changed to effectively unlimited.
This is not specific to the current administration, and in fact there's a move afoot to remove, or "drain", the current situation, or "swamp", of people who abuse the system. Especially of people who abuse the system for political gain.
Was having a bad day, needed that laugh. Trump draining the swamp, rofl, have you seen his appointees? ESPECIALLY of people who abuse it for political gain? You Trump supporters are really living in your own world.
This is a serious breach of trust in government, and while I've generally been giving Ajit Pai a pass because of TDS, this is where we can reasonably be outraged and call for his removal.
Really, this is what did it? The whole net neutrality thing, just TDS? The made up condition where people keep calling Trump on his bullshit instead of letting it go? Anyone who says 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' has no credibility and puts politics ahead of intellectual honesty.
We're talking about proprietary code; companies that pay to host their closed-source project privately. What's stopping them from doing it now is that they don't have the source sitting on their servers.
Anyone who can look at all the issues surrounding Windows 10, tricking people into upgrading, outright forcing upgrading, forcing updates, forcing reboots, forcing telemetry even on Enterprise, evading hosts file and firewalls rules blocking it, resetting settings, and claim that their abhorrent behavior is all in the past, is out of their damn mind. They've never worked harder at abusing their userbase.
So even if you can trust them to not leak it to 3rd parties, what about internally? What's to stop them from using it in their closed-source products?
What, because of refusing to use an inferior tool just because it's newer?
I'm using FF56 still, will eventually switch to Pale Moon. If a particular page doesn't work, I just load it in Chrome.
.NET.
Stubborn? Maybe a little. After all, I still write desktop utility apps in VB6, using tons of tricks, low-level APIs and COM interfaces to implement modern features, because I'm mad about
Ok a lot stubborn but with full justification, I shall resist the Chromification and XUL removal in Firefox until the day the very last workaround fails and the internet becomes unusable!
Descent was great, but bigger than Quake for that list?
Well some people care more about the features their plugins add that don't yet exist post-57, or in most cases will never exist because of WebExtensions limits Mozilla refuses to allow workarounds for, than they care that pages load in 2 seconds instead of 4 seconds, sometimes. Their arrogance in killing off a large part of the plugin capabilities that made Firefox great, continually dumbing down the interface and copying Chrome, and telling the large majority of their userbase opposed to this 'fuck off you'll want what we tell you to want', makes the dumping richly deserved.
All I said applies to Harris but yeah I think you're right and I was thinking of Nancy Pelosi, not Elizabeth Warren, as the other name I wanted to specifically call out. My bad.
They are.
Doing everything possible to support their rich CEO donors in their quest to fuck over people and the environment in pursuit of ever more profit.
What, you think they actually gave a damn about economic principles, fiscal conservatism, or family values? Please. Those are just tools they use to trick half the electorate into consistently voting against their own self-interest.
So you looked at Trump and thought "here's an honest, non-corrupt person"? And you guys wonder why everyone is insulting your intelligence... geez. His unabashed corruption in his dealings was open knowledge, what would ever possess you to think he'd get in office and not put Clinton's corruption (not denying that she was corrupt too) to shame?
I'd love to see Sanders get the nomination, but all signs point to the Democrats doubling down on their failed strategy and nominating another anti-civil rights, pro-surveillance, pro-war, identity politics obsessed woman like Kamala Harris or Elizabeth Warren, then proceed to imply only a racist/sexist would oppose them, and then wonder what happened when once again voters stay home and don't vote for anyone (the direct cause of Trump's win) again in record numbers.
Which is why I suggested amending or abolishing it. That some (but not all) of its original purpose is impossible (self defense, and an armed populace resisting foreign invasion working with our military, and hunting, and sport shooting still are), that doesn't mean you get to declare the whole thing void by ignoring it or re-writing history such that its other purposes aren't protected still.
Worse, the CDC guidelines are a total joke. There's no medical justification at all. It's nearly identical to the wish-list of restrictions the DEA ODC agents authored in a draft proposal. And most doctors feel compelled to follow its "anything less than screaming and bedridden is pain relief enough, until you hit the cap, then as long as the pain won't give them a heart attack let them scream" advice.
I still haven't seen any evidence that contradicts the 1% iatrogenic addiction rate either. Most addicts started with non-medical use and sought more, or were already abusing other drugs. There was no mass of drug naive people getting hooked, and whatever issue was there was addressed by not giving out 30-day scripts in the ER, and never should have effected long-term pain patients.
Then, they're even putting out propaganda studies that have conclusions like "Opiates no better than Tylenol!" because the highest dose they used was 5mg of hydrocodone.
It's horrible that thousands of people are left to suffer in extreme pain (or kill themselves, or risk killing themselves with street drugs) because they can't find a doctor that won't follow the DEA/CDC torture program, but I can't blame your wife at all.
It's our handling of the opiate crisis that is to blame. People were cut off or drastically reduced, abusers and legit pain patients alike, from their doctor-prescribed opiates with a known dose. The black market was there to meet that demand. Heroin ODs started going up, the demand was so strong fentanyl and its analogs appeared on the scene, causing a massive spike in ODs. The large majority of OD deaths could have been prevented by dealing with overprescribing in a way other than forcing people into the black market. It caused the OD spike, and on top of it countless people now suffer in pain or kill themselves when they were doing just fine before.
I don't agree with using it to try and edit the human genome to make taller offspring, or blue eyes, or 15 inch ding-dongs; but to cure a genetic disease... I think that's wonderful.
Can we define stupidity as genetic disease? Just look at the consequences of it...
We already disqualify the mentally ill. And if you look at the intentions of the 2nd, objectively, the restrictions we already have in place are already in profound contradiction of it, mostly fully reasonably, but let's not kid ourselves here: The intent was that the militia, composed automatically of all able bodied men, of which personal gun ownership was a requirement, would engage in military combat, with all the weapons of war, against invaders or an out of control domestic tyranny. This is the whole point here, you're trying to revise history by claiming the right is what you want it to be rather than what it is, completely divorced from what it actually means. This is incredibly damaging to our other rights. The proper way to deal with the 2nd is amend or abolish, not try to re-write history and pretend it's essentially void.
How many times do we have to go over this?
The "militia" in the time of the founders consisted of all able-bodied men. You were automatically in the militia. And expected to bring your own gun when the called up. Thus, the individual right was inherently a requirement for the formation of the militia. Also, if you read the history behind it, defense against tyranny was absolutely a consideration.
You're not going to achieve reform by lying about things.
Neither gun stores nor criminals are likely to sell guns to school children. (Yep, even your gang members have morals, they just differs from what the law says.)
Most of the school shooters are at least mid to late teens; sure they won't sell to little kids (usually) but older teens have no trouble on the black market when they look like they could easily be 18.
The issue is a gun culture that makes it acceptable to store guns in a way that every curious child knows how to get hold of dads guns.
There's no scenario under which that's preventable for kids old enough to go shoot up their school short of off-site storage, though better storage would help with accidental deaths for little kids.
Violence as a deterrent doesn't work that well if the aggressor doesn't expect to get out of it alive to begin with.
And that's part of why more gun control won't be effective against school shooters. They're so determined they're planning on giving their life for it, but not so determined they couldn't track down a black market gun? The more legal sales are restricted, the larger the black market will grow. One thing other countries with bans didn't have was hundreds of millions in circulation already; and there's just no way a confiscation program would happen here, not in the lifetime of anyone alive today. We need to focus on our mental health problem, and find a better, more accurate way to identify and help kids going down that road long before they decide to kill.
Well if you don't like it, amend or abolish the 2nd Amendment. Seriously, that's a good idea, do it.
But in the mean time, people need to stop pretending that ignoring and gutting the intent of it doesn't lay the groundwork for even more gutting and ignoring of the other, more popular rights.
Since a school suspended a 2nd grader just for chewing his poptart into the shape of a gun, an absurd decision upheld in court, I can't imagine anything that would confuse the recognition would end up well for the student. It's the world of Zero Tolerance [for common sense].