rise against an army having tanks, artillery and bombs
The army is prohibited from enforcing domestic laws by the Posse Comitatus Act. And the police and National Guard typically just abandon the streets and protect public buildings like city hall and the police precincts during large uprisings. So the streets are pretty much left to rioters and Roof Koreans. It's this latter group that the government fears. They need the general public to live in fear and depend on a large paramilitary police presence for security. Allowing people the right and means to defend themselves would just invite questions about what the cops are really needed for when the SHTF and they disappear.
I haven't kept track, but ISPs used to shit bricks if you tried to run a home server (without paying for a business class connection). Their (somewhat legitimate) reasoning was that home servers were more likely to be hacked and used for things like anonymous e-mail relays for spam. But most botnets work just fine with any Windows desktop OS, so that reasoning is no longer valid. Still, with everyone trying to sell cloud services, rolling your own will still meet some resistance.
Most home automation/security systems and services are subsidized by the reselling of your data once it hits the cloud. So if you try to run your own private service, be prepared to pay the full (unsubsidized) price for your hardware.
If it supports 3G/4G global standards. I'll be losing my (original) RAZR when AT&T drops 2G equipment later this year. I don't need all the garbage that iPhone/Androids have. Particularly with that 'must have data plan' bullshit that carriers pull with 'smartphones'.
And when I pay my gardener with my wages (which already are taxed) he has to pay taxes again. That's what a taxable entity is. If you don't like it, create your business as a partnership.
But corporations are just people. So they should pay income tax, just like us plebes.
The reality is they already don't.
Shareholders pay the tax. The price customers pay is set by the markets. Increase it and sales drop, reducing profits to the shareholders. And also revenue to the government on that profit.
Actually, it appears that they do. Or at least they care about the opinion of other women.
if women suddenly started giving shitty reviews and votes to monday night football.
I wouldn't care. I watch what I like and the networks respond by airing shows that attract viewers. So I'd venture a guess that football is safe, no matter what the online comments say. If you like it, watch it. Never mind what others think (men or women).
1) Pick a less contentious set of articles to edit
And then the crackpots win. They aren't resorting to abuse to win an argument. They are doing to to drive people with opposing view points, or people who just want to post the facts, off the forum. So they can present their view as the only one and therefore the correct one.
While pretty much every study shows that marijuana does not impact a persons health, cognative abilities,
Wow! How about this study? Living in a world where "pretty much" means "exclude everything that I don't agree with".
One feature of addiction is that the brain starts justifying the addictive behaviors. If you think getting stoned makes you silly and gives you a buzz, then I'll say, 'Fine. Your judgement pertaining to this activity is reasonable. And there's nothing wrong with a nice buzz under the right circumstances. Smoke 'em if you've got 'em.' But when your brain starts to play with perceptions of reality to keep you convinced that some activity is not detrimental*, you are addicted.
*People who think pot makes them insightful, clever, creative, etc.
It's worse. You have no legal recourse. Once the FBI 'talks' to you, they can include a gag order and you can't discuss the particulars of the conversation with anyone. Just like an NSL.
But that tends to diminish the demand for prostitution. In Amsterdam (according to the 'working women') most of the stoners can't get it up and so don't frequent the RLD's traditional businesses.
legalizing it does not remove neither pimps nor the trafficking problem.
The point that SuperFreakonomics made was that pimping was not necessarily a problem. It certainly is if you think that prostitution is a problem. But once you get over that, there is a logical demand for certain services (marketing, business management, etc.) that pimps provide prostitutes. And they (the hookers) will seek out pimps to provide these services. Once prostitution is legal, hookers can easily enter into or exit from any pimp/prostitute business relationship. So, what's the problem?
trafficking
This is a problem to the extent that it involves coercion and/or misrepresentation on the part of the pimp/trafficker. No longer a problem once prostitution is legal and prostitutes can avail themselves of civil courts to seek remedies for such grievances. Underage trafficking/prostitution goes away as the legal age hookers turn in the working kids. If for no other reason than to eliminate unwanted competition.
Slashdot Mirror
It's been done
rise against an army having tanks, artillery and bombs
The army is prohibited from enforcing domestic laws by the Posse Comitatus Act. And the police and National Guard typically just abandon the streets and protect public buildings like city hall and the police precincts during large uprisings. So the streets are pretty much left to rioters and Roof Koreans. It's this latter group that the government fears. They need the general public to live in fear and depend on a large paramilitary police presence for security. Allowing people the right and means to defend themselves would just invite questions about what the cops are really needed for when the SHTF and they disappear.
I haven't kept track, but ISPs used to shit bricks if you tried to run a home server (without paying for a business class connection). Their (somewhat legitimate) reasoning was that home servers were more likely to be hacked and used for things like anonymous e-mail relays for spam. But most botnets work just fine with any Windows desktop OS, so that reasoning is no longer valid. Still, with everyone trying to sell cloud services, rolling your own will still meet some resistance.
Most home automation/security systems and services are subsidized by the reselling of your data once it hits the cloud. So if you try to run your own private service, be prepared to pay the full (unsubsidized) price for your hardware.
If it supports 3G/4G global standards. I'll be losing my (original) RAZR when AT&T drops 2G equipment later this year. I don't need all the garbage that iPhone/Androids have. Particularly with that 'must have data plan' bullshit that carriers pull with 'smartphones'.
it already IS taxed
And when I pay my gardener with my wages (which already are taxed) he has to pay taxes again. That's what a taxable entity is. If you don't like it, create your business as a partnership.
create smart products that interact with your bank account.
Just nope. The havoc that these outfits could wreak with read-only access to my bank account simply boggles the mind.
Corporations should not pay income taxes.
But corporations are just people. So they should pay income tax, just like us plebes.
The reality is they already don't.
Shareholders pay the tax. The price customers pay is set by the markets. Increase it and sales drop, reducing profits to the shareholders. And also revenue to the government on that profit.
"You have 20 seconds to comply."
Lawyers file a hostile working conditions class action suit in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ....
Palmer Luckey: "I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it further."
The government is getting ready for this state of affairs by removing their means of revolt.
n/t
Oh well. It doesn't run on my iBook G4. You think I'm going to play with tracking sites using my primary system?
I ain't clickin' that shit, .....
WOMEN DON'T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT YOUR OPINION
Actually, it appears that they do. Or at least they care about the opinion of other women.
if women suddenly started giving shitty reviews and votes to monday night football.
I wouldn't care. I watch what I like and the networks respond by airing shows that attract viewers. So I'd venture a guess that football is safe, no matter what the online comments say. If you like it, watch it. Never mind what others think (men or women).
Shoot straight you bastards. Don't make a mess of it.
1) Pick a less contentious set of articles to edit
And then the crackpots win. They aren't resorting to abuse to win an argument. They are doing to to drive people with opposing view points, or people who just want to post the facts, off the forum. So they can present their view as the only one and therefore the correct one.
While pretty much every study shows that marijuana does not impact a persons health, cognative abilities,
Wow! How about this study? Living in a world where "pretty much" means "exclude everything that I don't agree with".
One feature of addiction is that the brain starts justifying the addictive behaviors. If you think getting stoned makes you silly and gives you a buzz, then I'll say, 'Fine. Your judgement pertaining to this activity is reasonable. And there's nothing wrong with a nice buzz under the right circumstances. Smoke 'em if you've got 'em.' But when your brain starts to play with perceptions of reality to keep you convinced that some activity is not detrimental*, you are addicted.
*People who think pot makes them insightful, clever, creative, etc.
same thing as a judicial subpoena.
It's worse. You have no legal recourse. Once the FBI 'talks' to you, they can include a gag order and you can't discuss the particulars of the conversation with anyone. Just like an NSL.
Third world problems.
legal pot
But that tends to diminish the demand for prostitution. In Amsterdam (according to the 'working women') most of the stoners can't get it up and so don't frequent the RLD's traditional businesses.
Legalize Microsoft?
I think you are going a bit too far with this.
Then again, how many cop shows are there?
Personally, I like cooking shows. Like Hannibal.
legalizing it does not remove neither pimps nor the trafficking problem.
The point that SuperFreakonomics made was that pimping was not necessarily a problem. It certainly is if you think that prostitution is a problem. But once you get over that, there is a logical demand for certain services (marketing, business management, etc.) that pimps provide prostitutes. And they (the hookers) will seek out pimps to provide these services. Once prostitution is legal, hookers can easily enter into or exit from any pimp/prostitute business relationship. So, what's the problem?
trafficking
This is a problem to the extent that it involves coercion and/or misrepresentation on the part of the pimp/trafficker. No longer a problem once prostitution is legal and prostitutes can avail themselves of civil courts to seek remedies for such grievances. Underage trafficking/prostitution goes away as the legal age hookers turn in the working kids. If for no other reason than to eliminate unwanted competition.
Dystopias are still in fashion, I guess.
I suppose this explains Slashdot.