I'm guessing geolocation based on IP when they check for updates and authenticate with their license key, and that there is a mechanism for showing alerts built into the software...
If they lower their rates, then everyone is happy except the new guy, who goes out of business. If rates are raised again, someone else will try it, and down they come again.
If the new guy fixes prices, then he is vulnerable to the same issue - another new guy can undercut him severely.
Pricing is a raise to break-even. It's inescapable, without the influence of government.
Yahoo! search is now Bing. You're going to have to find someone else.
Infowars isn't being censored that I can see, either. It's very difficult to get into Google News, and top-tier providers bounce in and out all the time.
As for censorship, Youtube isn't stopping anyone from talking about the issues, only from showing graphic violence. Private site, their policies. It's not hard to start your own site and do it yourself - but it is slightly hard than just whining about it.
And it would be soooo easy. Repeat after me: "Yes, I know I'm not running as a Christian conservative, I'm running as a libertarian. What? You're threatening to cross over to the Democrats? You know it is actually part of their party platform to kill unborn babies, right? Is that okay with you?"
There is no need to actively alienate religion - just stop pandering.
I see myself as a guy with a gun and a family, who doesn't ever want to be in a position where I need to protect them without the means to do so. I am not a comic book hero, nor am I a gangbanger, or an amateur - I have spent much time and money making sure that I am proficient and safe with firearms, so that I can carry and use them effectively.
The *last* thing I want is to have to resort to violence. I recognize, however, that there are situations where violence is the proper and moral response - such as, again, when my life or the lives of my family are in imminent danger. If a person is unstable enough to fire a gun at you because you cut him off, then he's unstable enough to run your car off the road with his. You appear to be advocating attempting to regulate actions by regulating objects.
In real life, no one around me knows that I carry a firearm. It is not a status symbol, I don't take it out and fingerfuck it in the bathroom, and I sure as hell don't whip it out like a big metal dick to show it off. My carrying of a firearm is a well-thought-out, conscious decision made by a rational human being.
Gun rights are a very large part of the individualist/libertarian political segments of American politics. Discussing the basis for my position on the issue is not off-topic. Further, I feel a very strong connection with the ideas that formed the philosophical basis for founding America. That doesn't mean that I have blind patriotism for the country, but that I have great respect for the philosophy that resulted in the US Constitution, and by extension, the US federal government. Looking to history as a means of evaluating future decisions seems perfectly reasonable to me.
As for the definition of "civilian", your prior usage was imprecise at best. The term is well-defined in international law, and while it is colloquially used by fraternally-structured organizations (the police, firefighters, EMS, etc), that is not its common usage. There was a reason I included it last in my post - it isn't really germane to our discussion, and is merely a pet peeve of mine.
I think there is a fundamental concept that people aren't understanding, and that's that there is a difference between isolationism and non-interventionism.
Isolationism is stupid, as it allows your national interests to be undermined without much effort at all. Non-interventionism is simply establishing what we need, and figuring out how to get it with the least impact to us. The US is not the world police, and we shouldn't be fighting in Somalia, regardless of what horrible things are happening there. Likewise, we should not be "nation-building". If the government of Afghanistan was harboring our declared enemy - KILL THEM. One at a time, until they change course as a nation.
We seem so ready to use our military and economic power at the drop of a hat in instances where it doesn't matter, but when we actually have reason to go to war, we pussy-foot around and try not to offend anyone. We should be obliterating our enemies and leaving everyone else the fuck alone.
It's not really within the NRA's mission for the most part, though there are many state-level organizations who are seeking to overturn laws prohibiting open carry of firearms, and to have concealed carry permit fees reduced to eliminated to increase access.
I am a member of one of them.
As a young white guy from the backwood in Arkansas, nothing would do my heart good like going to Little Rock and seeing young people in the minority communities there walking home from work with a pistol on their belt. As it stands, they'd be arrested for daring to be able to defend themselves. That's what police are for, right? Oh, except of course, the Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no duty to protect an individual, only a vague, collective "society at large".
By charging hundreds of dollars for training and certification, we are effectively preventing legal self-protection within the demographics that need it the most.
It's supposed to be dangerous, that's why you carry it. If it were safe, it wouldn't be effective, now would it?
There is a drill in handgunning called the "Tueller Drill". The premise is that in the time to takes a person to draw a handgun from a holster, present it, and fire it, a motivated attacker can cover 21 feet. A guy "across the room" with a knife will most likely be on top of a guy stabbing him in the throat before he's able to draw and fire from concealment. "Just has to draw and shoot" is your own preconception.
Also, the "obvious" connection between homicide rate and access to firearms is not borne out by statistics. So, while apparent, it is not statistically verifiable.
Finally, I'm not interested in making life easy for law enforcement. I'm interested in maintaining the individualist civil society that was wrestled from the grasp of a totalitarian government 200 years ago, where life for law enforcement was "easy".
It's also apparent that the overall homicide rate is consistent with the trend prior to the enactment of the gun bans of '94-'96.
I'm not sure why Aussies seem to think it better to be stabbed or beaten to death than to be shot, but more power to you, I guess. Myself, I prefer to be able to adequately defend myself.
I don't think it's a problem at all. The Founders, by and large, waited a looong time before resorting to violence. They only did so after every political means at their disposal was exhausted, and it was forced upon them.
The fact that you don't see violence today against TSA screeners shows that the opposition to the policy is one of civilized objection, not one of purely emotional reactionism.
Now, I don't think there is going to be violence because of this, nor should there be. The thing I'm seeing, though, is that this is just the latest in a series of recent events getting us progressively closer to that threshold. I first noticed this with TARP - people who never paid attention suddenly were doing so, and driving hundreds of miles to stand together and protest. It began to simmer down, but some of those people stayed involved and started taking political action.
With the second bailout bill, the response was even greater - but again, it simmered, and some fraction of those newly angry citizens stayed engaged. The cycle repeated with the auto bailouts, AIG, QE1 and now QE2, Obama's election, healthcare, the mid-term elections, and each time the base of engaged citizens got bigger.
This base will eventually get to the point that its clout will be large enough to make a fundamental shift in American politics. If that is suppressed, and this cycle continues, then at some point in the future, that cycle will begin again, except instead of citizens going from disengaged to engaged, they'll be going from engaged to committed to action.
Personally, I think we're seeing the beginning of a new area of libertarianism in American politics. If that's not the case, then either our new social democracy needs to stop making reforms long enough for the opposition to disengage, or we're going to see an increasing trend in violence.
These are just the observations of a 26-year-old libertarian, with all of the inherent political and observational bias that entails - but it's downright predictable right now.
Personally, I am far more likely to download an older game than a new one.
Just the other day, I was looking for a good copy of Civil War General II. Before that, I was playing OpenTTD, which is a clone of Transport Tycoon Deluxe.
There is enough interest in this stuff to foster a network of hosting sites if it were legal - but not enough to keep seeds operational.
You can also speak you mind against the current administration without using a computer - after all, the Internet is merely more convenient than writing and printing a flyer, then handing it out by hand.
Therefore, by your logic, it is within the US federal government's authority to censor political speech on the Internet.
Slashdot Mirror
You're doing it wrong.
Actually... Since AIDS doesn't kill until ample time has been given for reproduction, it is not likely to eliminate the trait.
I took it as a playful jab against Facebook users and their default reaction to change, not as a jab against Facebook.
I'm guessing geolocation based on IP when they check for updates and authenticate with their license key, and that there is a mechanism for showing alerts built into the software...
If they lower their rates, then everyone is happy except the new guy, who goes out of business. If rates are raised again, someone else will try it, and down they come again.
If the new guy fixes prices, then he is vulnerable to the same issue - another new guy can undercut him severely.
Pricing is a raise to break-even. It's inescapable, without the influence of government.
I typically get my news from a firearms enthusiasts' forum, the BBC, and the India Times.
I tried AlJazeera for a while, but I realized after a while that the English website and the Arabic website have completely different content.
Meh - Infowars is out there, but it isn't equivalent to Stormfront. I've never even heard of Timecube.
Yahoo! search is now Bing. You're going to have to find someone else.
Infowars isn't being censored that I can see, either. It's very difficult to get into Google News, and top-tier providers bounce in and out all the time.
As for censorship, Youtube isn't stopping anyone from talking about the issues, only from showing graphic violence. Private site, their policies. It's not hard to start your own site and do it yourself - but it is slightly hard than just whining about it.
Exactly. If I found a page of bad reviews that was PR5 and none of them had nofollows - I'd add every website I could fit :)
And it would be soooo easy. Repeat after me: "Yes, I know I'm not running as a Christian conservative, I'm running as a libertarian. What? You're threatening to cross over to the Democrats? You know it is actually part of their party platform to kill unborn babies, right? Is that okay with you?"
There is no need to actively alienate religion - just stop pandering.
I see myself as a guy with a gun and a family, who doesn't ever want to be in a position where I need to protect them without the means to do so. I am not a comic book hero, nor am I a gangbanger, or an amateur - I have spent much time and money making sure that I am proficient and safe with firearms, so that I can carry and use them effectively.
The *last* thing I want is to have to resort to violence. I recognize, however, that there are situations where violence is the proper and moral response - such as, again, when my life or the lives of my family are in imminent danger. If a person is unstable enough to fire a gun at you because you cut him off, then he's unstable enough to run your car off the road with his. You appear to be advocating attempting to regulate actions by regulating objects.
In real life, no one around me knows that I carry a firearm. It is not a status symbol, I don't take it out and fingerfuck it in the bathroom, and I sure as hell don't whip it out like a big metal dick to show it off. My carrying of a firearm is a well-thought-out, conscious decision made by a rational human being.
Gun rights are a very large part of the individualist/libertarian political segments of American politics. Discussing the basis for my position on the issue is not off-topic. Further, I feel a very strong connection with the ideas that formed the philosophical basis for founding America. That doesn't mean that I have blind patriotism for the country, but that I have great respect for the philosophy that resulted in the US Constitution, and by extension, the US federal government. Looking to history as a means of evaluating future decisions seems perfectly reasonable to me.
As for the definition of "civilian", your prior usage was imprecise at best. The term is well-defined in international law, and while it is colloquially used by fraternally-structured organizations (the police, firefighters, EMS, etc), that is not its common usage. There was a reason I included it last in my post - it isn't really germane to our discussion, and is merely a pet peeve of mine.
I think there is a fundamental concept that people aren't understanding, and that's that there is a difference between isolationism and non-interventionism.
Isolationism is stupid, as it allows your national interests to be undermined without much effort at all. Non-interventionism is simply establishing what we need, and figuring out how to get it with the least impact to us. The US is not the world police, and we shouldn't be fighting in Somalia, regardless of what horrible things are happening there. Likewise, we should not be "nation-building". If the government of Afghanistan was harboring our declared enemy - KILL THEM. One at a time, until they change course as a nation.
We seem so ready to use our military and economic power at the drop of a hat in instances where it doesn't matter, but when we actually have reason to go to war, we pussy-foot around and try not to offend anyone. We should be obliterating our enemies and leaving everyone else the fuck alone.
It's not really within the NRA's mission for the most part, though there are many state-level organizations who are seeking to overturn laws prohibiting open carry of firearms, and to have concealed carry permit fees reduced to eliminated to increase access.
I am a member of one of them.
As a young white guy from the backwood in Arkansas, nothing would do my heart good like going to Little Rock and seeing young people in the minority communities there walking home from work with a pistol on their belt. As it stands, they'd be arrested for daring to be able to defend themselves. That's what police are for, right? Oh, except of course, the Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no duty to protect an individual, only a vague, collective "society at large".
By charging hundreds of dollars for training and certification, we are effectively preventing legal self-protection within the demographics that need it the most.
It's supposed to be dangerous, that's why you carry it. If it were safe, it wouldn't be effective, now would it?
There is a drill in handgunning called the "Tueller Drill". The premise is that in the time to takes a person to draw a handgun from a holster, present it, and fire it, a motivated attacker can cover 21 feet. A guy "across the room" with a knife will most likely be on top of a guy stabbing him in the throat before he's able to draw and fire from concealment. "Just has to draw and shoot" is your own preconception.
Also, the "obvious" connection between homicide rate and access to firearms is not borne out by statistics. So, while apparent, it is not statistically verifiable.
Finally, I'm not interested in making life easy for law enforcement. I'm interested in maintaining the individualist civil society that was wrestled from the grasp of a totalitarian government 200 years ago, where life for law enforcement was "easy".
Oh, and law enforcement *are* civilians.
He's making a point - trying to dilute the term "American" to include everyone from the Northwest Territories to Terra del Fuego.
If you want a more precise term, I'm an Arkansas. Calling me a "USian" is like calling a German a "EUian".
Correct. Murder rates are a function of the culture, not of the availability of a specific weapon.
I'll agree there - the GOP has to get its shit together ASAP for the 2012 elections. If they put up Romney, I anticipate the death of the party.
Isn't this how Square's cardreaders for iPhone work, anyhow?
Whoa - we could get paid for promoting gun rights? Where do I sign up?
It's also apparent that the overall homicide rate is consistent with the trend prior to the enactment of the gun bans of '94-'96.
I'm not sure why Aussies seem to think it better to be stabbed or beaten to death than to be shot, but more power to you, I guess. Myself, I prefer to be able to adequately defend myself.
I don't think it's a problem at all. The Founders, by and large, waited a looong time before resorting to violence. They only did so after every political means at their disposal was exhausted, and it was forced upon them.
The fact that you don't see violence today against TSA screeners shows that the opposition to the policy is one of civilized objection, not one of purely emotional reactionism.
Now, I don't think there is going to be violence because of this, nor should there be. The thing I'm seeing, though, is that this is just the latest in a series of recent events getting us progressively closer to that threshold. I first noticed this with TARP - people who never paid attention suddenly were doing so, and driving hundreds of miles to stand together and protest. It began to simmer down, but some of those people stayed involved and started taking political action.
With the second bailout bill, the response was even greater - but again, it simmered, and some fraction of those newly angry citizens stayed engaged. The cycle repeated with the auto bailouts, AIG, QE1 and now QE2, Obama's election, healthcare, the mid-term elections, and each time the base of engaged citizens got bigger.
This base will eventually get to the point that its clout will be large enough to make a fundamental shift in American politics. If that is suppressed, and this cycle continues, then at some point in the future, that cycle will begin again, except instead of citizens going from disengaged to engaged, they'll be going from engaged to committed to action.
Personally, I think we're seeing the beginning of a new area of libertarianism in American politics. If that's not the case, then either our new social democracy needs to stop making reforms long enough for the opposition to disengage, or we're going to see an increasing trend in violence.
These are just the observations of a 26-year-old libertarian, with all of the inherent political and observational bias that entails - but it's downright predictable right now.
Personally, I am far more likely to download an older game than a new one.
Just the other day, I was looking for a good copy of Civil War General II. Before that, I was playing OpenTTD, which is a clone of Transport Tycoon Deluxe.
There is enough interest in this stuff to foster a network of hosting sites if it were legal - but not enough to keep seeds operational.
Doesn't matter which way he did it, as there is no way for Paramount to track his purchases to see one way or another.
It is a Fist of Righteous Restraint, not Impotence, I assure you.
You can also speak you mind against the current administration without using a computer - after all, the Internet is merely more convenient than writing and printing a flyer, then handing it out by hand.
Therefore, by your logic, it is within the US federal government's authority to censor political speech on the Internet.