I'm filled with an all consuming hate for some reason. Oh yes. I know why. It's like trying to copyright the idea of a recipe for chocolate cake instead of the particular recipe you devised. These companies deserve to be dissolved. Not even kidding.
I'm sorry. I can see my mistake now. I misread your post as referring to you as an individual in the context of your country, not your country in the world. That's a pretty substantial mistake on my part, so I can't really defend anything I said as making sense in context.
I'm sorry, but while I do understand that there is diversity within every political position:
Actually, Libertarians rarely assume anything. Most Libertarians are fans of logic and rationality.
This is absolute nonsense. Everyone except those of a particularly religious bent believes their political beliefs are totally rational, and a huge percentage of people don't grasp basic logic enough to demonstrate that. Every outlook is fundamentally built on predicates. For example the de-facto core predicate of libertarianism goes something like this "Liberty is the highest good." Most, or at least many, Americans agree with this tenant, but when it's twisted to be "Liberty from government interference is the only good" it becomes a dangerous short-circuit on the role of society in achieving humanistic goals. I have objections with most libertarian thought in that it implicitly endorses many kinds of harm one private citizen can visit upon another, with no mechanism for limiting that harm.
I cannot, of course, explicitly say everyone who shares identification with that world view is engaged in the same kind of mistakes, but I can identify commonly considered core principles to be poorly reasoned.
To put that more straightforwardly: libertarians assume that there is a natural economic process to internalize all external costs when there is not. That is the underlying flaw of neo-liberalism.
Please, don't be a moron. They use that response when the request is specifically something unconstitutional, like interfering in court cases, or arresting specific individuals. The fact that a lot of the petitions are by people who don't understand the U.S. government is not Obama's fault.
I think you overestimate the degree to which quality determines who becomes powerful and rich the US. There's a degree to which the most sociopathic win here. It's totally in keeping with that kind of mentality to threaten and harass to get what you want, even when there is no net benefit to it.
USA: the dumb sociopaths become criminals, the mediocre sociopaths are management or run for office, and sometimes the smart ones run things too, when we're lucky. The rest of us just get to play victims.
Keep in mind that the gap between median and mean pay keeps growing. You're being increasingly screwed systematically while telling yourself it's ok because you're doing better than half the other people being screwed.
Sure, but then at least you've forced an elected official instead of a bureaucrat to take an official position on the matter. The mechanics of the US's democracy suck, but low-grade feedback is better than no feedback on terrible decisions.
I dunno. He proposed the system. There's nothing wrong with using technology to create a little tiny ignorable amount of direct democracy in an otherwise quite dysfunctional republic. I don't think anyone is under the impression that petitions fix everything, but it may allow for correcting the occasional oversight.
I kept my health care plan. I'm only reading a seething moronic disdain from you without any real intellectual substance. You don't like Obama, therefor I must not either? What's the point of this line of reasoning?
Obama has done pretty well considering intentional sabotage. I'd replace him with an identical candidate opposed to warrantless wiretaps and oversightless drone strikes in an instant, but he's otherwise done quite well.
When I read the question, I knew that is exactly what the answer would be, already knowing those were exactly the problems with that response. That sounds like I'm bullshitting after the fact, but this is a repeating response to republicans doing something a republican finds distasteful throughout the last couple decades.
As a similar example, ask someone you know who voted for Bush twice what they think of him now. About 60% of them will give exactly this response.
And before anyone gets on my case, it's not a partisan flaw, many people who've formed a strong opinion about politics don't change in the face of evidence.
He being me, just for reference. The vast vast vast vast majority of malware infections come from sites you never intended to visit: domain squatters, advertisers working with shady sites, SEO space-wasters, bogus links. I only run 3rd party software I actually have reason to trust.
How exactly is software that doesn't run going to get exploited, pray tell? Objects dependent on any code outside firefox are replaced with plain-boring html until I click-to-run them, which is the only time their associated libraries get loaded into memory at all.
Among my computers is a windows machine. I have no fear of being compromised because it has no exposed ports, a safe browser, and all 3rd party plugins disabled until I activate them. I also have an android phone, and I'm near certain it'll get malware from an advertisement someday, because I have no means of blocking anything. It has nothing to do with the underlying safety of the system, but always the weakest link the chain.
You pretend as if somehow Nazi Germany wasn't mostly composed of small towns or something. Stupid rhetorical tactics like that should be reserved for politicians, not polite debate.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm filled with an all consuming hate for some reason. Oh yes. I know why. It's like trying to copyright the idea of a recipe for chocolate cake instead of the particular recipe you devised. These companies deserve to be dissolved. Not even kidding.
It'd have to be owned by some sort of horrible corporate master more concerned with principal than principles. Hmm...
I'm sorry. I can see my mistake now. I misread your post as referring to you as an individual in the context of your country, not your country in the world. That's a pretty substantial mistake on my part, so I can't really defend anything I said as making sense in context.
I'm sorry, but while I do understand that there is diversity within every political position:
This is absolute nonsense. Everyone except those of a particularly religious bent believes their political beliefs are totally rational, and a huge percentage of people don't grasp basic logic enough to demonstrate that. Every outlook is fundamentally built on predicates. For example the de-facto core predicate of libertarianism goes something like this "Liberty is the highest good." Most, or at least many, Americans agree with this tenant, but when it's twisted to be "Liberty from government interference is the only good" it becomes a dangerous short-circuit on the role of society in achieving humanistic goals. I have objections with most libertarian thought in that it implicitly endorses many kinds of harm one private citizen can visit upon another, with no mechanism for limiting that harm.
I cannot, of course, explicitly say everyone who shares identification with that world view is engaged in the same kind of mistakes, but I can identify commonly considered core principles to be poorly reasoned.
But you're part of why your neighbor's signal is even worse. This is by-the-book tragedy of the commons that you're engaged in.
To put that more straightforwardly: libertarians assume that there is a natural economic process to internalize all external costs when there is not. That is the underlying flaw of neo-liberalism.
And not just that, but you still have to pay the damn contract even if you unlock the thing.
Please, don't be a moron. They use that response when the request is specifically something unconstitutional, like interfering in court cases, or arresting specific individuals. The fact that a lot of the petitions are by people who don't understand the U.S. government is not Obama's fault.
Oh man, those groups run twice a week at my employer. You're lucky.
I think you overestimate the degree to which quality determines who becomes powerful and rich the US. There's a degree to which the most sociopathic win here. It's totally in keeping with that kind of mentality to threaten and harass to get what you want, even when there is no net benefit to it.
USA: the dumb sociopaths become criminals, the mediocre sociopaths are management or run for office, and sometimes the smart ones run things too, when we're lucky. The rest of us just get to play victims.
Keep in mind that the gap between median and mean pay keeps growing. You're being increasingly screwed systematically while telling yourself it's ok because you're doing better than half the other people being screwed.
Well, enjoy your political nihilism.
Sure, but then at least you've forced an elected official instead of a bureaucrat to take an official position on the matter. The mechanics of the US's democracy suck, but low-grade feedback is better than no feedback on terrible decisions.
I dunno. He proposed the system. There's nothing wrong with using technology to create a little tiny ignorable amount of direct democracy in an otherwise quite dysfunctional republic. I don't think anyone is under the impression that petitions fix everything, but it may allow for correcting the occasional oversight.
Ok. Thanks for making me read that. Your bare assertions of doom have totally convinced me.
I kept my health care plan. I'm only reading a seething moronic disdain from you without any real intellectual substance. You don't like Obama, therefor I must not either? What's the point of this line of reasoning?
You're really a "doomed to repeat it" kinda person, aren't you?
Luckily, this time there aren't any natives to genocide.
Obama has done pretty well considering intentional sabotage. I'd replace him with an identical candidate opposed to warrantless wiretaps and oversightless drone strikes in an instant, but he's otherwise done quite well.
When I read the question, I knew that is exactly what the answer would be, already knowing those were exactly the problems with that response. That sounds like I'm bullshitting after the fact, but this is a repeating response to republicans doing something a republican finds distasteful throughout the last couple decades.
As a similar example, ask someone you know who voted for Bush twice what they think of him now. About 60% of them will give exactly this response.
And before anyone gets on my case, it's not a partisan flaw, many people who've formed a strong opinion about politics don't change in the face of evidence.
If you take 10 minutes to read every opinion with a fundamentally flimsy premise, you'll be wasting decades.
He being me, just for reference. The vast vast vast vast majority of malware infections come from sites you never intended to visit: domain squatters, advertisers working with shady sites, SEO space-wasters, bogus links. I only run 3rd party software I actually have reason to trust.
How exactly is software that doesn't run going to get exploited, pray tell? Objects dependent on any code outside firefox are replaced with plain-boring html until I click-to-run them, which is the only time their associated libraries get loaded into memory at all.
Among my computers is a windows machine. I have no fear of being compromised because it has no exposed ports, a safe browser, and all 3rd party plugins disabled until I activate them.
I also have an android phone, and I'm near certain it'll get malware from an advertisement someday, because I have no means of blocking anything. It has nothing to do with the underlying safety of the system, but always the weakest link the chain.
You pretend as if somehow Nazi Germany wasn't mostly composed of small towns or something. Stupid rhetorical tactics like that should be reserved for politicians, not polite debate.