Leaving too soon will create a civil war, and it will be 100% our fault.
Until we leave, every misfortune that Iraq suffers is and always will be our fault. Once again, we have failed to learn the lessons of Vietnam. And we are hearing precisely the same arguments for staying in Iraq.
Creating democracy...
!? You mean like we did in Syria in 1949 and Chile in 1973? Of all our interests in the region, democracy is not one of them. We will stay in Iraq until we can place a new Saddam, just like the old one. And when he turns on us, just repeat. The "democracy" we put into Iraq is pure show. Only American/British approved candidates can run.
There is a viable exit strategy. Just walk away. Don't look back. We can come back when they ask. However, that would put a huge crimp into a certain party's/company's/people's cash flow. And that's what this war(and many others) is about.
Well, I'm no believer in precident. Slavery was once established in precident. Tradition doesn't make it right. Now, if political speech was spelled out specifically in the constitution or an amendment, I could understand idea of different kinds of speech. Not that I would agree. However, the first amendment specifically states "...no law...". If that goes against the grain, then the constitution needs another amendment, instead of loosly interpreting the ones we have just to avoid offending people. I will always maintain that it's the response that counts. There has to be a physical reaction for speech to mean anything. Otherwise it's just that...speech. If we start to limit speech, then it only follows that we are attempting to limit thought. Which is what I believe is happening.
And do not give me any of that bullshit about the Democrats not being any better...
Well, when I see the democrats actually stand up and say no to the republicans and put up a real fight against the patriot act, the war, torture, etc., I might actually believe you. You really should wake up to the fact that they both feed from the same trough. They both trip over each other trying to be just like the other to garner a few extra votes.
The next round of elections will not come soon enough for me. I still have hopes that the damage can be reversed.
By all historical indications, you are in for a big disappointment. The majority thinks all this is just fine. Many believe we have too many freedoms. The gov't is representing 99% of the voters to the tee, and they consider the other 1% (the real opposition) to be a bunch of loons. As long as the major party continues to win the elections, there will be absolutely no reversal. Chances are that this degradation will accelerate. Too bad your neighbors are too brainwashed to vote with a real conscious and get these fascists out of office. On the other hand, it's possible that the voters are consciously voting for fascism.
Really! Claria's "new business model"?? What did they do? Find a new way around our spyware detection software? Or maybe they figure the FBI or NSA can do the spying for them. And now that your IRS records will be up for sale, they can just buy what they need from H&R Block.
This isn't about protecting society. It's about protecting powerful business interests.
It just shows how ineffective and out of context the lobbied laws are.
For whom? This is going to create great investment opportunities for some. None of these people care whether it's effective or not. This is about cash flow.
your money, it appears that the prison industry will be a good start. Is Germany's private prison industry as active as America's? These regulations sure will help the "dark net" and other privacy advocates and developers. Oh well, the majority has spoken. Who ever thought that the leaders of the Fourth Reich would be the content distributors?
Both your scenarios involve the transfer of money. Whether I give the money to a candidate or if I spend it myself campaigning for him doesn't matter. They are the same thing. Both would be for the his benefit. Besides, you shouldn't regulate the transfer of money either. How and when I move my money is my business. However, you are welcone to tax it at a set percentage equal to all other transactions. Now, if I'm running for office, you would be very correct in demanding to know where the money comes from. Not with some arbitrary law, but with your vote...or lack thereof. Simply stated, I will give up the required information if I want your support. But don't blame me if your neighbors are a little more loose with theirs. It's up to you to convince your neighbors to do otherwise.
Some of us believe that campaign contributions should be 100% without limits, but 100% reported and accounted for so the public can see exactly who is buying and selling our politicians.
Exactly. Anything less is an admission that we don't have a free will...that we're not capable of deciding for ourselves. It's the voter that is most influenced by money. They always vote for the guy who flashes the most of it. That's nobody's fault but our own. This thought also applies to speech. We must understand that in all cases, it's the perpetrator that is responsible for their actions, and nobody else's, not the one who "incites" him, nobody. We must not tolerate any limitations on speech. Words are harmless. Just like a gun is harmless, until someone pulls the trigger. But you should never blame the gun. It's the action that matters. There is no valid claim that speech provokes action. Only the "actor" should be held responsible. All this talk about "incitement", "libel", "slander", is a lot of bull. Somebody has to act on that speech to make it mean anything. And it's that person you should look to when handing out punishment.
That's a hard question to answer since IP doesn't exist in nature. It's an artificial creation of powerful vested interests. This will remain unresoved...there can be no balance as long as these interests are writing the law.
If people bothered taking the time to look at each and every candidate on the ballot, people will find that there are true choices.
It's been part of my rant for a very long time. Yet, it continues to fall on deaf ears. I guess they're too comfortable to take the chance. Unfortunately, if and when they do get mad enough, rationality(what they had to begin with) usually goes right out the window, and they'll pick some whacko charismatic and just make things much worse.
The main reason for GPL comes from copyright law. In fact it's the only reason. Copyright law is what made GPL necessary. Without copyright, GPL is not needed. And of course your house analogy is way off base. I shouldn't need to explain why. Slavery is a good analogy. Slaves are people who are arbitrarily placed into servitude by people with more power. The same can be said for information, excpet the part about being people. Like people, information must not be placed into servitude(copyright) by people with power.
I can say without any doubt that there is nothing positive about any law that would imprison a person or even lay a fine for writing software just because it can be used in a way that offends powerful people and groups. It would be nice if something like this could only happen in France, but unfortunately the concept is catching on worldwide. If this proposition is popular amongst the masses, either they are ignorant or they are fascists...or both.
But please, if I am wrong, please let me know when you've convinced the scorpion to share his food, his recordings and his software with you.
Sorry to reply twice. If the scorpion is "convinced" that you will share with him, he just might. That's also from that link. If we can control natural selection, we can indeed induce a change in behavior.
The lesson is nature is nature and human nature is human nature.
I don't know why people try to treat this as two seperate entities. "Human" nature is the same as all other nature. None of what motivates us is exclusively human in nature(heh). Even altruism is natural. All of the rules of behavior is written very explicitly in our DNA. Everything we do is to assure the survival of one's particular genes...at the expense or for the benefit of others if need be. FTL: "...a gene that causes its bearer to behave altruistically - to be favored by natural selection can be expressed as a simple formula: b/c > 1/r, where c is the cost incurred by the altruist, b is the total benefit enjoyed by recipients of the altruism, and r is a measure of how closely donor and recipient are related." Hmmm, the more I read, the more elusive this thing called "free will" becomes. FTL again: "After all, humans are cognitively sophisticated creatures, with behaviors that are generally the product of conscious thought and deliberation. By contrast, much animal behavior is simply instinctive. This is his claim. I would never be so bold. None of us really have a clue as to what motives conscious thought. We may be complex, but we're still not breaking any natural law. We use philosophy to justify what is essentially instinctive behavior. We recognize ourselves in the mirror. Other than that we really aren't much different than anything else.
Well, Q is not here to answer the question, so I'll have to... Becasue it is profitable. It creates cash flow. It doesn't matter what system you have. If there's money to be made, it will be comprimised.
We have this weird idea in our economy that it must grow or expand to be viable. Mere stability is a bad thing. It is believed that if the economy doesn't expand, it will stagnate and die. So there can never be enough. Every year it's a new gimmick, contraption, whatever. Planned obsolescence is a necessity. IP law helps in that the "old and lousy" that was replaced with the "new and improved" is still protected and can't be touched. Windows 3.1 on a 386 is still adequate for many people, but where can you get a legal copy? Who's making 386s? Nobody but Intel is allowed to, and of cousre that stinks. The world could have $25 computers if not for laws like these. So yes, they have to go after the pirates in order to force us to buy the latest piece of junk. There is only one thing on their minds. Cash flow. Every thought that's thunk revolves around that.
Slashdot Mirror
Leaving too soon will create a civil war, and it will be 100% our fault.
Until we leave, every misfortune that Iraq suffers is and always will be our fault. Once again, we have failed to learn the lessons of Vietnam. And we are hearing precisely the same arguments for staying in Iraq.
Creating democracy...
!? You mean like we did in Syria in 1949 and Chile in 1973? Of all our interests in the region, democracy is not one of them. We will stay in Iraq until we can place a new Saddam, just like the old one. And when he turns on us, just repeat. The "democracy" we put into Iraq is pure show. Only American/British approved candidates can run.
There is a viable exit strategy. Just walk away. Don't look back. We can come back when they ask. However, that would put a huge crimp into a certain party's/company's/people's cash flow. And that's what this war(and many others) is about.
Well, I'm no believer in precident. Slavery was once established in precident. Tradition doesn't make it right. Now, if political speech was spelled out specifically in the constitution or an amendment, I could understand idea of different kinds of speech. Not that I would agree. However, the first amendment specifically states "...no law...". If that goes against the grain, then the constitution needs another amendment, instead of loosly interpreting the ones we have just to avoid offending people. I will always maintain that it's the response that counts. There has to be a physical reaction for speech to mean anything. Otherwise it's just that...speech. If we start to limit speech, then it only follows that we are attempting to limit thought. Which is what I believe is happening.
And do not give me any of that bullshit about the Democrats not being any better...
Well, when I see the democrats actually stand up and say no to the republicans and put up a real fight against the patriot act, the war, torture, etc., I might actually believe you. You really should wake up to the fact that they both feed from the same trough. They both trip over each other trying to be just like the other to garner a few extra votes.
The next round of elections will not come soon enough for me. I still have hopes that the damage can be reversed.
By all historical indications, you are in for a big disappointment. The majority thinks all this is just fine. Many believe we have too many freedoms. The gov't is representing 99% of the voters to the tee, and they consider the other 1% (the real opposition) to be a bunch of loons. As long as the major party continues to win the elections, there will be absolutely no reversal. Chances are that this degradation will accelerate. Too bad your neighbors are too brainwashed to vote with a real conscious and get these fascists out of office. On the other hand, it's possible that the voters are consciously voting for fascism.
Really! Claria's "new business model"?? What did they do? Find a new way around our spyware detection software? Or maybe they figure the FBI or NSA can do the spying for them. And now that your IRS records will be up for sale, they can just buy what they need from H&R Block.
This isn't about protecting society. It's about protecting powerful business interests.
It just shows how ineffective and out of context the lobbied laws are.
For whom? This is going to create great investment opportunities for some. None of these people care whether it's effective or not. This is about cash flow.
your money, it appears that the prison industry will be a good start. Is Germany's private prison industry as active as America's? These regulations sure will help the "dark net" and other privacy advocates and developers. Oh well, the majority has spoken. Who ever thought that the leaders of the Fourth Reich would be the content distributors?
Both your scenarios involve the transfer of money. Whether I give the money to a candidate or if I spend it myself campaigning for him doesn't matter. They are the same thing. Both would be for the his benefit. Besides, you shouldn't regulate the transfer of money either. How and when I move my money is my business. However, you are welcone to tax it at a set percentage equal to all other transactions. Now, if I'm running for office, you would be very correct in demanding to know where the money comes from. Not with some arbitrary law, but with your vote...or lack thereof. Simply stated, I will give up the required information if I want your support. But don't blame me if your neighbors are a little more loose with theirs. It's up to you to convince your neighbors to do otherwise.
giving 5 million to $candidate so he can spend it on campaigning = bad and should be regulated
spending 5 million selling people you think they should vote for $candidate = first amendment
So, what you're saying is: first amendment=bad and should be regulated. Don't sweat it. Lots of people believe that.
Some of us believe that campaign contributions should be 100% without limits, but 100% reported and accounted for so the public can see exactly who is buying and selling our politicians.
Exactly. Anything less is an admission that we don't have a free will...that we're not capable of deciding for ourselves. It's the voter that is most influenced by money. They always vote for the guy who flashes the most of it. That's nobody's fault but our own. This thought also applies to speech. We must understand that in all cases, it's the perpetrator that is responsible for their actions, and nobody else's, not the one who "incites" him, nobody. We must not tolerate any limitations on speech. Words are harmless. Just like a gun is harmless, until someone pulls the trigger. But you should never blame the gun. It's the action that matters. There is no valid claim that speech provokes action. Only the "actor" should be held responsible. All this talk about "incitement", "libel", "slander", is a lot of bull. Somebody has to act on that speech to make it mean anything. And it's that person you should look to when handing out punishment.
That's a hard question to answer since IP doesn't exist in nature. It's an artificial creation of powerful vested interests. This will remain unresoved...there can be no balance as long as these interests are writing the law.
If people bothered taking the time to look at each and every candidate on the ballot, people will find that there are true choices.
It's been part of my rant for a very long time. Yet, it continues to fall on deaf ears. I guess they're too comfortable to take the chance. Unfortunately, if and when they do get mad enough, rationality(what they had to begin with) usually goes right out the window, and they'll pick some whacko charismatic and just make things much worse.
The main power of GPL comes from copyright laws.
The main reason for GPL comes from copyright law. In fact it's the only reason. Copyright law is what made GPL necessary. Without copyright, GPL is not needed. And of course your house analogy is way off base. I shouldn't need to explain why. Slavery is a good analogy. Slaves are people who are arbitrarily placed into servitude by people with more power. The same can be said for information, excpet the part about being people. Like people, information must not be placed into servitude(copyright) by people with power.
The message is often lost in the cult of personality. This is especially true in religion and politics.
I can say without any doubt that there is nothing positive about any law that would imprison a person or even lay a fine for writing software just because it can be used in a way that offends powerful people and groups. It would be nice if something like this could only happen in France, but unfortunately the concept is catching on worldwide. If this proposition is popular amongst the masses, either they are ignorant or they are fascists...or both.
All she's doing is arming the students with blow guns and spit balls.
I get to decide which hardware I buy and use. So MY interest will be the one deciding which hardware will be sold.
I take it you're not interested in a full band scanner that includes reception in the 800mhz band(first generation cell phones, in case you forgot).
Who do they answer to?
For informational value...
For entertainment value, or as thay say, "Follow the money".
But please, if I am wrong, please let me know when you've convinced the scorpion to share his food, his recordings and his software with you.
Sorry to reply twice. If the scorpion is "convinced" that you will share with him, he just might. That's also from that link. If we can control natural selection, we can indeed induce a change in behavior.
The lesson is nature is nature and human nature is human nature.
I don't know why people try to treat this as two seperate entities. "Human" nature is the same as all other nature. None of what motivates us is exclusively human in nature(heh). Even altruism is natural. All of the rules of behavior is written very explicitly in our DNA. Everything we do is to assure the survival of one's particular genes...at the expense or for the benefit of others if need be. FTL: "...a gene that causes its bearer to behave altruistically - to be favored by natural selection can be expressed as a simple formula: b/c > 1/r, where c is the cost incurred by the altruist, b is the total benefit enjoyed by recipients of the altruism, and r is a measure of how closely donor and recipient are related." Hmmm, the more I read, the more elusive this thing called "free will" becomes. FTL again: "After all, humans are cognitively sophisticated creatures, with behaviors that are generally the product of conscious thought and deliberation. By contrast, much animal behavior is simply instinctive. This is his claim. I would never be so bold. None of us really have a clue as to what motives conscious thought. We may be complex, but we're still not breaking any natural law. We use philosophy to justify what is essentially instinctive behavior. We recognize ourselves in the mirror. Other than that we really aren't much different than anything else.
They have access to my email...
Q: Why does spyware exist?
Well, Q is not here to answer the question, so I'll have to...
Becasue it is profitable. It creates cash flow. It doesn't matter what system you have. If there's money to be made, it will be comprimised.
All we can hope to do is educate people to stop installing crap.
What? And put the Anti-Spyware Comanpies out of business? Or worse put Microsoft out of business? That was a joke. I love Microsoft...like the plague.
The 360 will scratch every disc you put in it...
It was supposed to just scratch off the green ink from the edge. I guess they went a bit overboard.
We have this weird idea in our economy that it must grow or expand to be viable. Mere stability is a bad thing. It is believed that if the economy doesn't expand, it will stagnate and die. So there can never be enough. Every year it's a new gimmick, contraption, whatever. Planned obsolescence is a necessity. IP law helps in that the "old and lousy" that was replaced with the "new and improved" is still protected and can't be touched. Windows 3.1 on a 386 is still adequate for many people, but where can you get a legal copy? Who's making 386s? Nobody but Intel is allowed to, and of cousre that stinks. The world could have $25 computers if not for laws like these. So yes, they have to go after the pirates in order to force us to buy the latest piece of junk. There is only one thing on their minds. Cash flow. Every thought that's thunk revolves around that.