The only ones I'm familiar with that fit the above description are those which have strict controls on what the "democracy" is allowed to do. The fewer of those controls in place (closer to true democracy), the less free those societies are.
Switzerland would be a notable exception, but Switzerland is a notable exception to many things. The Swiss are just cool like that.
The more "real" the democracy, the less freedom it will have (except the freedom to conform). The extreme of more democracy is as bad as the extreme of none. Democracy is only useful in moderation.
Extrapolating from Agent K's excellent take on groups of people, the closer you get to real democracy the less freedom you'll have. The only way to get along in a democracy is to be average, or to have a position where the brainless will mindlessly follow you. Anyone who stands out is at the mercy of the crowd, and the average person is merciless when they "know" something despite all evidence to the contrary.
In the US, it is, and so the exact same elements apply to both speech and firearms.
Those who don't like that fact are more than welcome to push for a Constitutional amendment. If they try to make an end run around the Constitution for their own convenience, they are helping build the very gallows that will hang free speech, the right to assemble, the right to privacy, the right to be secure in their homes, the right to equal treatment under the laws, and every other right.
Of course, this only applies to the US, since many other nations do not have protected rights.
News organizations can still be sued for slander, and most people not registered are not engaged in slander.
Your "choice" above is the very definition of a false dichotomy. There actually four possibilities, and two of them are already legally actionable. Registration changes nothing except by creating a barrier to entry and restraining free speech.
I currently live in a decent-sized US city and make do on about $12,000/year.
Car insurance is $500 per 6 months with comprehensive and 100/300k coverage. Food is barely over $100/month for two because we cook. Rent is under $500 for a two-bedroom apartment.
It's been a number of years, but when I was looking at private, non-employer, non-family insurance the cost was only about 50% higher than the Medicare maximum premiums (~$700/month). Copays were roughly the same, at 20%.
I'm not sure what machines you've used, but CNC machines are fast, simple, and stock is far cheaper by volume (especially for anything requiring decent tensile strength) than filament stock. Wood, acrylic, and billet aluminum are dirt cheap compared to the same volume of filament.
The only case in general where the above isn't true is when you want the option to make something that is not solid, which the guide notes.
When comparing machine costs, you also need to compare machine quality. Yeah, a MakerBot is cheaper than a CNC machine, but that's like comparing a Little League player to a Minor League player.
Not all traffic court judges are that way, though I would agree that likely most of them are. I once got out of a speeding ticket by entering a written plea of not guilty, and defending myself by claiming the policies of the county I was ticketed in were designed to abusively maximize revenue.
I actually wrote the letter in an intentionally combative manner, because I had every expectation of being ruled against due to previous experiences in this particular county (well known for their officers lying about speeds in an effort to increase revenue).
I was quite surprised to be let off completely after presenting no evidence, and doing so in an aggressive manner, while making accusations I didn't even bother to support. The judge did admonish me slightly for the tone of my letter, but that was it.
I agree. Fuck the comments about sexism. This is 100% a dad doing something because he loves his daughter and was able to do something cool because she wanted something different.
The DA won't press charges because then the police unions will make any investigation the DA is involved in "not work out," assuming the unlikely event that the DA is willing to charge any police officer with a crime at a time when the charges are otherwise avoidable.
The problem is that police unions in many States have commissions empowered to overturn even a completely legitimate termination of an officer's employment, and they frequently do so.
My city and county have each had an officer re-instated following a justified termination (one for lying, impeding an investigation, and conduct unbecoming, and the other for public exposure) in the last three years.
Yes, someone in the US may reasonably be killed by most types of weapons platforms in certain situations.
The outrage over drones specifically is that they have been verifiably used in two cases against US citizens who were not an immediate threat to anyone, and there was never an attempt to arrest them by conventional means. If there had, and they had presented a forcible resistance, due process would have been satisfied and lethal use of force justified.
Unilaterally killing them while claiming immunity from Congressional or judicial oversight coupled with no attempt at a formal arrest is the root cause for the hysteria over drones being used in the US.
Citizenship shouldn't make a difference, but the Constitution does not apply to non-citizens on foreign soil. There's actually even the argument that it doesn't apply to US citizens on foreign soil, but they haven't quite completed the full functionality of that loophole. They're working hard on it though.
Nobody is saying they'd also support other means of killing people. The topic is drones because drones are the only thing being used to engage in the particular behavior that is considered reprehensible.
If it was any other method it would be just as wrong, but they're not attempting to legally justify any other measure. As a result, nobody is protesting these non-existent other measures.
You don't know much about Rand Paul then. Your statement is absurd as saying "Ron Wyden (D) wouldn't be on board with this if there was a Democrat in the White House."
There are actually Congresscritters who are willing to defy their party on real, important philosophical grounds, in both parties.
Arbitrary, when applied to authority, includes the use of unrestrained or autocratic decision-making. The strikes against US citizens (al Awlaki and his son were both US citizens) had no oversight and no due process, making them arbitrary. Based on being able to find them with a drone, they could have realistically attempted to capture and try them as they were not currently engaged in hostile action. Had they fired back during the attempted capture, their deaths would have been justified. Instead, they were arbitrarily executed.
Libya does not fit the definition of a military action against a clear and present danger to the US as defined under the War Powers Act, and did not receive the oversight (a declaration of war) of Congress. Ergo, it was arbitrary.
Obama signed the NDAA, authorizing the continued detentions at Guantanamo. This, however, was not actually arbitrary. It was a complete capitulation to Congressional tyranny.
Or is the partisan ship really that blindly strong, that they won't "speak up" because it's "not a republican." I'm guessing it's because "not a republican."
You seem to confuse libertarians with people who wish to abolish the Federal government.
Libertarians want the government to stay within its prescribed role. I'd trade superpower status in a heartbeat for a government that was rational, responsive, and unable to wield enough power to be abusive.
The exact same results could be achieved by consent at the age of sexual maturity. That also happens to be at an age where anesthesia can be used and the foreskin does not need to be torn from the glans. When done as an infant, the procedure is traumatic and painful, but they can't do anything but scream at that age.
I cannot imagine the agony of having connective tissue attached to the most densely packed nerve clusters torn off, followed by the cutting of the foreskin. However, any girl who has undergone a clitoridectomy as an adolescent or teenager could probably give you an accurate description of the pain, since the procedure involves the same nerve bodies and is also done without the benefit of anesthesia.
The medical argument is an excuse unless it is done at an advanced age where the pain can be mitigated and at least something approaching informed consent can be obtained. Not to mention, once the glans has grown a great deal the rate of permanent unintentional disfigurement approaches zero. I know a few people (possibly more I don't know about) who have physical problems or pain as a result of circumcision as infants, and all of them agree it is not worth the dubious health benefits.
Calling on parents to be responsible is a lot more than the technical aspect of preventing their children from doing something. It's much more about expecting them to be involved in teaching their children what they should and should not do. That calling on parents to be ultimately responsible for the supervision of their children is considered nonsense by more than a fringe few is truly sad.
All the above said, I don't care if children who go looking for porn find it, and preventing the majority of it from being found accidentally is not technically difficult.
Slashdot Mirror
The only ones I'm familiar with that fit the above description are those which have strict controls on what the "democracy" is allowed to do. The fewer of those controls in place (closer to true democracy), the less free those societies are.
Switzerland would be a notable exception, but Switzerland is a notable exception to many things. The Swiss are just cool like that.
The AC who replied previously covered it perfectly well.
The more "real" the democracy, the less freedom it will have (except the freedom to conform). The extreme of more democracy is as bad as the extreme of none. Democracy is only useful in moderation.
Extrapolating from Agent K's excellent take on groups of people, the closer you get to real democracy the less freedom you'll have. The only way to get along in a democracy is to be average, or to have a position where the brainless will mindlessly follow you. Anyone who stands out is at the mercy of the crowd, and the average person is merciless when they "know" something despite all evidence to the contrary.
In the US, it is, and so the exact same elements apply to both speech and firearms.
Those who don't like that fact are more than welcome to push for a Constitutional amendment. If they try to make an end run around the Constitution for their own convenience, they are helping build the very gallows that will hang free speech, the right to assemble, the right to privacy, the right to be secure in their homes, the right to equal treatment under the laws, and every other right.
Of course, this only applies to the US, since many other nations do not have protected rights.
News organizations can still be sued for slander, and most people not registered are not engaged in slander.
Your "choice" above is the very definition of a false dichotomy. There actually four possibilities, and two of them are already legally actionable. Registration changes nothing except by creating a barrier to entry and restraining free speech.
I currently live in a decent-sized US city and make do on about $12,000/year.
Car insurance is $500 per 6 months with comprehensive and 100/300k coverage. Food is barely over $100/month for two because we cook. Rent is under $500 for a two-bedroom apartment.
It's been a number of years, but when I was looking at private, non-employer, non-family insurance the cost was only about 50% higher than the Medicare maximum premiums (~$700/month). Copays were roughly the same, at 20%.
I'm not sure what machines you've used, but CNC machines are fast, simple, and stock is far cheaper by volume (especially for anything requiring decent tensile strength) than filament stock. Wood, acrylic, and billet aluminum are dirt cheap compared to the same volume of filament.
The only case in general where the above isn't true is when you want the option to make something that is not solid, which the guide notes.
When comparing machine costs, you also need to compare machine quality. Yeah, a MakerBot is cheaper than a CNC machine, but that's like comparing a Little League player to a Minor League player.
They stopped needing amendments to make things Constitutional a long time ago.
Medicare is already run by the insurance industry, as is Medicaid in most States.
As for expanding Medicare to cover everyone, have you actually looked at the cost of using Medicare? It's not exactly cheap.
http://www.medicare.gov/your-medicare-costs/costs-at-a-glance/costs-at-glance.html
Not all traffic court judges are that way, though I would agree that likely most of them are. I once got out of a speeding ticket by entering a written plea of not guilty, and defending myself by claiming the policies of the county I was ticketed in were designed to abusively maximize revenue.
I actually wrote the letter in an intentionally combative manner, because I had every expectation of being ruled against due to previous experiences in this particular county (well known for their officers lying about speeds in an effort to increase revenue).
I was quite surprised to be let off completely after presenting no evidence, and doing so in an aggressive manner, while making accusations I didn't even bother to support. The judge did admonish me slightly for the tone of my letter, but that was it.
I agree. Fuck the comments about sexism. This is 100% a dad doing something because he loves his daughter and was able to do something cool because she wanted something different.
Or untick the "allow scripts to detect context menu events" in Opera.
The DA won't press charges because then the police unions will make any investigation the DA is involved in "not work out," assuming the unlikely event that the DA is willing to charge any police officer with a crime at a time when the charges are otherwise avoidable.
The problem is that police unions in many States have commissions empowered to overturn even a completely legitimate termination of an officer's employment, and they frequently do so.
My city and county have each had an officer re-instated following a justified termination (one for lying, impeding an investigation, and conduct unbecoming, and the other for public exposure) in the last three years.
Yes, someone in the US may reasonably be killed by most types of weapons platforms in certain situations.
The outrage over drones specifically is that they have been verifiably used in two cases against US citizens who were not an immediate threat to anyone, and there was never an attempt to arrest them by conventional means. If there had, and they had presented a forcible resistance, due process would have been satisfied and lethal use of force justified.
Unilaterally killing them while claiming immunity from Congressional or judicial oversight coupled with no attempt at a formal arrest is the root cause for the hysteria over drones being used in the US.
Citizenship shouldn't make a difference, but the Constitution does not apply to non-citizens on foreign soil. There's actually even the argument that it doesn't apply to US citizens on foreign soil, but they haven't quite completed the full functionality of that loophole. They're working hard on it though.
Nobody is saying they'd also support other means of killing people. The topic is drones because drones are the only thing being used to engage in the particular behavior that is considered reprehensible.
If it was any other method it would be just as wrong, but they're not attempting to legally justify any other measure. As a result, nobody is protesting these non-existent other measures.
You don't know much about Rand Paul then. Your statement is absurd as saying "Ron Wyden (D) wouldn't be on board with this if there was a Democrat in the White House."
There are actually Congresscritters who are willing to defy their party on real, important philosophical grounds, in both parties.
Arbitrary, when applied to authority, includes the use of unrestrained or autocratic decision-making. The strikes against US citizens (al Awlaki and his son were both US citizens) had no oversight and no due process, making them arbitrary. Based on being able to find them with a drone, they could have realistically attempted to capture and try them as they were not currently engaged in hostile action. Had they fired back during the attempted capture, their deaths would have been justified. Instead, they were arbitrarily executed.
Libya does not fit the definition of a military action against a clear and present danger to the US as defined under the War Powers Act, and did not receive the oversight (a declaration of war) of Congress. Ergo, it was arbitrary.
Obama signed the NDAA, authorizing the continued detentions at Guantanamo. This, however, was not actually arbitrary. It was a complete capitulation to Congressional tyranny.
Or is the partisan ship really that blindly strong, that they won't "speak up" because it's "not a republican." I'm guessing it's because "not a republican."
This would be the answer.
Plus, I think a lot of people would much rather that 100% of the money went to the developer, and not the middleman leeches.
You seem to confuse libertarians with people who wish to abolish the Federal government.
Libertarians want the government to stay within its prescribed role. I'd trade superpower status in a heartbeat for a government that was rational, responsive, and unable to wield enough power to be abusive.
The exact same results could be achieved by consent at the age of sexual maturity. That also happens to be at an age where anesthesia can be used and the foreskin does not need to be torn from the glans. When done as an infant, the procedure is traumatic and painful, but they can't do anything but scream at that age.
I cannot imagine the agony of having connective tissue attached to the most densely packed nerve clusters torn off, followed by the cutting of the foreskin. However, any girl who has undergone a clitoridectomy as an adolescent or teenager could probably give you an accurate description of the pain, since the procedure involves the same nerve bodies and is also done without the benefit of anesthesia.
The medical argument is an excuse unless it is done at an advanced age where the pain can be mitigated and at least something approaching informed consent can be obtained. Not to mention, once the glans has grown a great deal the rate of permanent unintentional disfigurement approaches zero. I know a few people (possibly more I don't know about) who have physical problems or pain as a result of circumcision as infants, and all of them agree it is not worth the dubious health benefits.
Calling on parents to be responsible is a lot more than the technical aspect of preventing their children from doing something. It's much more about expecting them to be involved in teaching their children what they should and should not do. That calling on parents to be ultimately responsible for the supervision of their children is considered nonsense by more than a fringe few is truly sad.
All the above said, I don't care if children who go looking for porn find it, and preventing the majority of it from being found accidentally is not technically difficult.