But, liberals DO raise taxes. They're taxers and spenders. THAT is the point of this conversation. If you've been reading closely, I've given you a subtle marketing lesson. That's image marketing.
Nope, you don't get it. Liberals are evil, because they are branded that way. Facts don't matter, truth is what we say it is, and both of them get in the way of elections.
My existence is in the region where the rubber meets the road. The existence of libertarians is irrelevant to my concerns. Yes I know they exist, but that's not useful. The same goes for whatever detailed definitions of micro-political affiliations you might be trying to communicate.
I exist now only for election and re-election, and that's my focus. My retirement is only from my previous profession. Now I am applying my wealth to winning back our country from what I see as the forces of evil. This requires extreme focus on what's important. I've noticed that liberals NEVER mastered this. I include libertarians in this too. Somehow they have become effete intellectuals, sipping lattes and arguing the fine points of political theory. But when it comes time to make your opponent deny that he rapes babies (or shoots Vietcong in the back), you're above it. And you lose.
So exCUSE me if your blah blah blah isn't relevant to the marketing of the politics of identity.
I'm listening to you, but what you're saying is nonsense. Why do you call yourself a liberal if you're not a taxerer and a spenderer? I've run into people like that before, and they just say nonsense. You say you're a libertarian, but seriously, *what the hell is that* but some irrelevant intellectualism.
The only thing that really matters is Republican and Democrat. The other ideas are nonsense. Democrat ideas are nonsense too, but that's nonsense which is dangerously popular and thus must be taken seriously.
When it comes right down to it, that's the only thing that matters. Are you big enough to be taken seriously, or are you big enough to survive? If not, then extinction is what nature intends. That's how I ran my business, and that's how I run my politics.
Politics aren't black and white, it's good and evil. There's not too many ways to have something that is evil, and is also good. Literally, when you want to take money from me and give it to the poor, or buy contraception (abortions), or school lunches, or schools, it's stealing. That's bad, and no matter how you spin it, it's not good. It doesn't matter if poor children need to eat. Stealing from one person to give it to another is wrong, even if I'm rich. Jesus said do not steal. He didn't say it was OK to steal from people who are rich.
And I'm not trolling, BTW. Is it really hard to believe that I am sincere about what I believe? Certainly you must have an idea that there are some people in the world that think like I do. Yes, of course you do. So then why when you're talking to one of those people can't you believe it? I don't understand that.
My father's still alive, thank you very much, and I don't actually have a job. I'm retired now, a wealthy self-made man, only 38 years old! Truly, in this country there's really no excuse for people to not have a life like mine. When they don't succeed it's because they suffer from a moral failing such as laziness, or promiscuity, or good direction, and not because they're not smart.
I made my money in the embedded systems business, though ironically I hired people who knew about that. My own expertise was more along the lines of traditional consulting and computer services. My father was well off and financed my purchase of an existing business which provided the foundation to build on. The rest is history. We made some deals, made an awful lot of money, split it up, and dissolved the company.
So then what you're saying is that in the week after a hippie takes a bath, the proper name for him is libertarian? But then for the rest of the month he's a liberal again?
Whatever, dude. It's dawn in Hawaii and my yacht is waiting. See you back on the mainland.
If you're so smart, then why do we unsophisticated, unschooled, unthoughtful conservatives consistently beat the pants off you in elections? Sure, you're going to win this one. But check back to 1968 and your record doesn't look so good.
No matter how many dictionary definitions you can quote, it still doesn't change the fact that you libs just want to raise taxes and give the money to welfare queens. Think hard about that one.
I do dislike liberals. I dislike their atheism, their whinyness, their eagerness to get their hands on my money, their social programs, their hatred of the military, their celebrities, their expensive food tastes, and their unwashed hair.
They're just not Americans in my opinion. More like French or something vaguely European.
No, less emacs is what we need right now. Damn those silly emacs users.
But all your other ideas sound good too. Personal freedoms are something you buy. I know, because I can afford them. If you disagree, then you just aren't rich enough to know the difference. When liberals talk about extending rights, they really mean spreading money. Money is freedom in many ways, or it results from freedom. When you steal my money, you steal my freedom and trample my rights.
As you say, the problem is that the bill of rights is not enough for liberals.
Wear levelling. If you have a gigabyte drive, and you can write each byte a million times, then you would have to do 10^15 writes to the disk before you'd start seeing problems. And man, that's just a crazy way to use a hard disk.
Me neither. Sell the entire infrastructure to private companies. They charge tolls and maintain the roads for us, without taxes. Simple solution to the problem.
I know a guy who is only paid $200,000 a year. He wants to make a million dollars a year. His argument is that since he is not paid a million dollars a year, his employer is costing the US economy $800,000 a year!
I laughed in his face and told him to get out of my office and get back to work or the losses to the economy were going to go up by a couple hundred grand...
Actually, it's the other way around, and you're just not looking at this the right way. Without any government, it's up to you to safeguard your property. Otherwise, you rely on government to keep record of title, and enforce your right for you.
In this case, you paid your money for a service, not a product. The contract was clear, and if you didn't understand what you were buying, well, too bad. It's an incentive to be smart, that's for sure.
Now if Google wants to call the process a "purchase" then that's fine. You must know that you're purchasing a right to view, not the right to what's viewed. Again, if that's not clear, read your contract for the purchase again.
If there was some actual theft, then it's up to the individual to get a lawyer and take Google to court.
But, please don't blame government and corporations for what is essentially a failure of a person to read a contract and be responsible for themselves. The response will just be MORE government, and no amount of government is going to keep fools and money from being parted. I'd even argue that fools deserve to be parted from their money.
I'm glad you're not going to agree with that idea. I don't agree with it either. I never said it.
This communication seems to be one long string of assumptions about what I said, and a failure on your part to ask questions. What I wrote was actually quite complicated, and it's not a complete description by any means. If you're going to draw conclusions from it, then you're going to look stupid.
Let me tease you here: A simulated 747 inside a computer isn't real to us. It's in a different level of implementation, and it lacks the essential linkage to our level of implementation which would make it a real 747. But, if I were in the same level of implementation, for example, if a single computer were simulating both the 747 and ME, then this 747 would be a real 747.
There, don't you feel stupid now? You read the abstract and thought it was a complete idea. Even this additional information doesn't explain everything. Jerk.
That's an ethically bankrupt outlook. That same outlook means a homeless person trapped in a mine unknown to anyone isn't a person either.
You'd come to that conclusion if you didn't understand my point. Or, you might come to that conclusion if you thought that the insides of mines weren't real (in the same level of implementation). Or, you might come to that conclusion if you thought that since you can't see things, they disappear. Or, you might come to that conclusion for any number of other reasons not listed here.
But in any of those cases, you'd be wrong, since that's not even close to what I wrote.
Let me give you some advice, from someone who made millions in the software business.
Some people do indeed make money by selling to affluent decisions makers. God Bless Them. On the other hand, there's a lot of money to be made from selling to dumbasses who wouldn't know a decision if it bit them on the rump. This company might just be focusing on a market which opens their wallet without asking too many questions.
Slashdot Mirror
But, liberals DO raise taxes. They're taxers and spenders. THAT is the point of this conversation. If you've been reading closely, I've given you a subtle marketing lesson. That's image marketing.
Nope, you don't get it. Liberals are evil, because they are branded that way. Facts don't matter, truth is what we say it is, and both of them get in the way of elections.
My existence is in the region where the rubber meets the road. The existence of libertarians is irrelevant to my concerns. Yes I know they exist, but that's not useful. The same goes for whatever detailed definitions of micro-political affiliations you might be trying to communicate.
I exist now only for election and re-election, and that's my focus. My retirement is only from my previous profession. Now I am applying my wealth to winning back our country from what I see as the forces of evil. This requires extreme focus on what's important. I've noticed that liberals NEVER mastered this. I include libertarians in this too. Somehow they have become effete intellectuals, sipping lattes and arguing the fine points of political theory. But when it comes time to make your opponent deny that he rapes babies (or shoots Vietcong in the back), you're above it. And you lose.
So exCUSE me if your blah blah blah isn't relevant to the marketing of the politics of identity.
I'm listening to you, but what you're saying is nonsense. Why do you call yourself a liberal if you're not a taxerer and a spenderer? I've run into people like that before, and they just say nonsense. You say you're a libertarian, but seriously, *what the hell is that* but some irrelevant intellectualism.
The only thing that really matters is Republican and Democrat. The other ideas are nonsense. Democrat ideas are nonsense too, but that's nonsense which is dangerously popular and thus must be taken seriously.
When it comes right down to it, that's the only thing that matters. Are you big enough to be taken seriously, or are you big enough to survive? If not, then extinction is what nature intends. That's how I ran my business, and that's how I run my politics.
Politics aren't black and white, it's good and evil. There's not too many ways to have something that is evil, and is also good. Literally, when you want to take money from me and give it to the poor, or buy contraception (abortions), or school lunches, or schools, it's stealing. That's bad, and no matter how you spin it, it's not good. It doesn't matter if poor children need to eat. Stealing from one person to give it to another is wrong, even if I'm rich. Jesus said do not steal. He didn't say it was OK to steal from people who are rich.
And I'm not trolling, BTW. Is it really hard to believe that I am sincere about what I believe? Certainly you must have an idea that there are some people in the world that think like I do. Yes, of course you do. So then why when you're talking to one of those people can't you believe it? I don't understand that.
My father's still alive, thank you very much, and I don't actually have a job. I'm retired now, a wealthy self-made man, only 38 years old! Truly, in this country there's really no excuse for people to not have a life like mine. When they don't succeed it's because they suffer from a moral failing such as laziness, or promiscuity, or good direction, and not because they're not smart.
I made my money in the embedded systems business, though ironically I hired people who knew about that. My own expertise was more along the lines of traditional consulting and computer services. My father was well off and financed my purchase of an existing business which provided the foundation to build on. The rest is history. We made some deals, made an awful lot of money, split it up, and dissolved the company.
So then what you're saying is that in the week after a hippie takes a bath, the proper name for him is libertarian? But then for the rest of the month he's a liberal again?
Whatever, dude. It's dawn in Hawaii and my yacht is waiting. See you back on the mainland.
If you're so smart, then why do we unsophisticated, unschooled, unthoughtful conservatives consistently beat the pants off you in elections? Sure, you're going to win this one. But check back to 1968 and your record doesn't look so good.
No matter how many dictionary definitions you can quote, it still doesn't change the fact that you libs just want to raise taxes and give the money to welfare queens. Think hard about that one.
Lies from the liberal media.
I do dislike liberals. I dislike their atheism, their whinyness, their eagerness to get their hands on my money, their social programs, their hatred of the military, their celebrities, their expensive food tastes, and their unwashed hair.
They're just not Americans in my opinion. More like French or something vaguely European.
You forgot one.
6502 -> 68K Macs
68K -> Power PC
Power PC -> x86
logfs. It's a log structured filesystem. Perfect for flash.
No, less emacs is what we need right now. Damn those silly emacs users.
But all your other ideas sound good too. Personal freedoms are something you buy. I know, because I can afford them. If you disagree, then you just aren't rich enough to know the difference. When liberals talk about extending rights, they really mean spreading money. Money is freedom in many ways, or it results from freedom. When you steal my money, you steal my freedom and trample my rights.
As you say, the problem is that the bill of rights is not enough for liberals.
If there's one thing more annoying than a liberal, it's an emacs user.
Wear levelling. If you have a gigabyte drive, and you can write each byte a million times, then you would have to do 10^15 writes to the disk before you'd start seeing problems. And man, that's just a crazy way to use a hard disk.
I don't believe in ESP, but somehow I knew somebody was going to ask that question. Weird.
Maybe he can run Linux on vmware on top of Windows. Letter of the law.
Me neither. Sell the entire infrastructure to private companies. They charge tolls and maintain the roads for us, without taxes. Simple solution to the problem.
I know a guy who is only paid $200,000 a year. He wants to make a million dollars a year. His argument is that since he is not paid a million dollars a year, his employer is costing the US economy $800,000 a year!
I laughed in his face and told him to get out of my office and get back to work or the losses to the economy were going to go up by a couple hundred grand...
Actually, it's the other way around, and you're just not looking at this the right way. Without any government, it's up to you to safeguard your property. Otherwise, you rely on government to keep record of title, and enforce your right for you.
In this case, you paid your money for a service, not a product. The contract was clear, and if you didn't understand what you were buying, well, too bad. It's an incentive to be smart, that's for sure.
Now if Google wants to call the process a "purchase" then that's fine. You must know that you're purchasing a right to view, not the right to what's viewed. Again, if that's not clear, read your contract for the purchase again.
If there was some actual theft, then it's up to the individual to get a lawyer and take Google to court.
But, please don't blame government and corporations for what is essentially a failure of a person to read a contract and be responsible for themselves. The response will just be MORE government, and no amount of government is going to keep fools and money from being parted. I'd even argue that fools deserve to be parted from their money.
You didn't even read what I wrote, and you're pretending I said things I did not.
Yep, you're a superstar!
I'm glad you're not going to agree with that idea. I don't agree with it either. I never said it.
This communication seems to be one long string of assumptions about what I said, and a failure on your part to ask questions. What I wrote was actually quite complicated, and it's not a complete description by any means. If you're going to draw conclusions from it, then you're going to look stupid.
Let me tease you here: A simulated 747 inside a computer isn't real to us. It's in a different level of implementation, and it lacks the essential linkage to our level of implementation which would make it a real 747. But, if I were in the same level of implementation, for example, if a single computer were simulating both the 747 and ME, then this 747 would be a real 747.
There, don't you feel stupid now? You read the abstract and thought it was a complete idea. Even this additional information doesn't explain everything. Jerk.
Are you really that stupid?
Mines are the real world. That's why real people dig mines. That's why real people work in mines. I'm a real person and I've been to a mine.
Existence in the real world is a stronger than an essential linkage that a simulation might have with the real world.
That's an ethically bankrupt outlook. That same outlook means a homeless person trapped in a mine unknown to anyone isn't a person either.
You'd come to that conclusion if you didn't understand my point. Or, you might come to that conclusion if you thought that the insides of mines weren't real (in the same level of implementation). Or, you might come to that conclusion if you thought that since you can't see things, they disappear. Or, you might come to that conclusion for any number of other reasons not listed here.
But in any of those cases, you'd be wrong, since that's not even close to what I wrote.
Let me give you some advice, from someone who made millions in the software business.
Some people do indeed make money by selling to affluent decisions makers. God Bless Them. On the other hand, there's a lot of money to be made from selling to dumbasses who wouldn't know a decision if it bit them on the rump. This company might just be focusing on a market which opens their wallet without asking too many questions.
Since consciousness requires neither sensory inputs nor outputs
Why?