The characters are not displayed in the same way, I cannot paste cyrillic in slashdot, but the difference between the y and the russian u is visible, the tail of the y is rounder.
Of course, it leaves room for phishing attack, but they are not the same character. Not historically, not linguistically, not in encoding, not in display.
Weird. They recognize the US is guilty but they just fine ? US infringement on the right of Antigua's casino is a continuous process but it looks like they're paying a one time fine. Wtf ?
If someone starts creating new life, we're not worst off merely because he's the only one doing it, however, if they start getting effective monopolies through patents, that becomes a serious problem.
Yeah but I was a very awesome user of Opera, your two computer mobile device and brother in law are far to make up for it. In fact, unless you manage to package Opera with Storm, there's not much you can do.
I don't have to interact. I can rest in zen contemplation of a wall. Besides I can also live and interact with my family. Why exactly couldn't I build my own roads on my property ? I can defend my property, it's not that hard and above all, it's MY problem. Why would I need to build my own computer when I can buy one made somewhere else in the world... if someone is willing to sell a computer to me that's all good and it doesn't commit me to anything else that the payment required by the manufacturer.
*Who will keep gangs or the mob or indeed the government from taking over everything you have?*
I didn't say I could do it, otherwise I'd do it, I said I should have the right to do, in other words:
the government (or the mobs) *should* not try to take over what I have. Right now I am much more concerned with the government, a clear an present threat, than with the mobs.
A contract is made on the own terms of all parties involved, there is no such thing as a "social contract".... call it reality, call it the element of violence in society, but not a contract.
You talk of my degree of freedom as if it were a privilege. Freedom is not a priviledge, a privilege is something someone grants you, no one grants you freedom, but some people do take your freedom away.
The Economist coined that out of their ass? Seriously, the current acception of 'citizen' is a person taken as subject to the laws of a specific government. What does *that* has to do with voluntary distributed computing? Nothing! They just assume voluntary distributed computing = virtuous, virtuous = good citizen, and there bingo citizen becomes synonymous with virtuous. Participation in a common project becomes not a personal contribution, but a contribution from us, *as subjects of a government*.
*Populations shift with climate change and have established themselves according to the CURRENT climate*
There are two fallacies in your argument.
First, we have established ourselves according to past climate, the climate was not always what it currently is, we inherit evolution and establishment from previous period, so our current climate may not be optimal.
Second, even if we adapt to a specific environment, it does not imply we cannot be more fitted to another environment.
A blind person may adapt his habits to his handicap, if one day he becomes able to see, he can still be better off although he has previously adapted to blindness. (note to morons, this is not a comparison, this is an example illustrating a generic fallacy about adaptation applied by the parent to earth's climate)
You can't do something without sollicitation and then present the bill. I wasn't educated in the US btw, but that's beside the point. Many products you buy are made in China and travelled on Chinese roads, why don't you pay taxes to China then?
What you're saying boils down to: but, buuuut, buuut government can't help providing you services. Well that's too bad for them, I don't give a shit, I don't want national defense, state roads or state police, and I don't want to pay for it.
By reading this message you are benefiting from my superior debating skills, but that doesn't give me the right to charge you for it, does it?
"We the people" do not express anything, we the people have 250,000,000 different opinions, there is no such thing as "what *we* consider a fair society".
You are mistaking as many do anarchy and anomy, anarchy is the absence of state, not the absence of law. You give no reason why anarchy would beget tyranny. And even if it did (it doesn't rest assured), that does not give Uncle Sam the right to smack me down. Fiat justicia ruat colelum.
Not only wouldn't the government have a duty to prevent me from using my property as I see fit, it doesn't have a right to do so. Besides, you are assuming the government is "special", your argument goes the other way around, why wouldn't it be according to you my duty to use the force of arms to impose my will on the US government?
I offer you to send you poetry by email every sunday, I'll charge you $100 for the privilege, unless you live in Mongolia.
You can unsuscribe from this expensive newsletter by moving to Mongolia anytime.
Why should I have to move from my land to opt out of government services?
It's my land, not the government's.
As I said whether I am capable or incapable of living independently from my fellow men is beside the point. Maybe I'll just be alone on my patch of land and die of sorrow, maybe I'll become a zen monk, maybe I'll actually invite people and have a 24/24 party going on. That's *my* problem.
My relationship with my fellow humans is up to those fellow humans, not the community. The community has no right to decide who I can befriend, marry. In fact a community does not even "decide" anything, decisions are made by individuals. For example, my marrying someone involves me and that person, and no other people. Of course everyone is free to have an opinion on that, but I am not infringing on anyone's right.
The community has no right, individuals have rights, and even if it had, it would be incapable of exercising them having no mind or desire of its own. There is no such thing as a social contract.
In the US, *some people* have written a constitution and formed a government and granted themselves some power. I see no reason why I should consider that biding on my part. I too can claim to derive my power "from the people as a whole", it doesn't make it binding.
You present the crudest form of collectivism. There is no such thing as people's will or community's will, let alone decisions or rights. You are granting rights to abstractions and taking them away from real individuals, your ideas sir are the root of most evil on earth.
Following the societal norm of the time is no excuse for unethical behavior let alone crime. Our acts are inherently good or bad, independently from the judgment of society.
You claim morality is relative based on a difference of opinion (on the death penalty, on abortion), but that's assuming no one is wrong... because it's relative: you're really begging the question. Although a few people may believe gravity do not affect them (I can fliiiiiiiiiie) that doesn't mean the physical law of gravity is relative.
Social norms are relative, but the core of morality (not killing, not stealing...) is rooted in the unique nature of man as a rational animal.
Do you have a figure? What percentage of women that live through a rape commit suicide. That'd be an interesting figure to look at. Did you know the vast majority of rapes are commited by - tadzoum - the husband ! Certainly unacceptable and punishable, but maybe not something worth killing yourself for.
The feminist myth that rape is worst than death and can never be overcome is actually hurting rape victim by making them feel odd when they eventually heal from the psychological wound.
You're making a claim without a connection to the premises. You say we can't judge pas civilizations and societies by "modern standard" of right and wrong (whatever that is) because "we shouldn't refrain from embracing the progress thos societies brought in the arts, sciences, etc".
Uh? We can very well do both, judge them morally and embrace the progress they brought in the arts & sciences, I don't see the problem here. Someone may be a great scientist and bad person, there's no contradiction here.
What's also insidious in your comment is that we're supposed to implicitly accept moral relativism, the fact that accepted moral norms varied from culture to culture does not imply that morality itself is relative and merely reflects "modern standards".
I would obtain that property by buying it to its owner. I don't care if there is a deed organized by government. I may pay the owner with greenbacks or gold or peanuts or whatever he will accept in exchange for his land, that does not mean I consent to be governed.
I know very well I can't remove myself for the system, that's what I am complaining about. It's not that I don't have the physical capacity to be myself out of the systemn, is just that the government won't let me, it will actively prevent me from removing myself from the system.
My staying here does not mean I consent, no more than the grocer keeping his store consent to the mafia racket, no more than the man who, being robbed at gunpoint, consents to give is wallet.
So I can't opt-out of the government because the government says-so ? Sorry I don't want to be bullied. Anyway if you look at the thread, I was responsding to the claim that "the government derives its just power from the consent of the governed". Since I do not consent to be governed, the government powers are unjust when they apply to me.
I suggest that if I don't vote and don't agress the U.S. government the U.S government should have no unsollicited business with me.
If I own a piece of land in Nevada and declare publicly that I want no government services whatsoever, no justice, no schools, no social security, no defense, nothing, the government will still come and tax me. That is being governed against my will.
These are options that may help me avoid being governed by the US government against my will, but their mere existence doesn't change the fact that if I choose to stay in the US and don't vote, I am being governed against my will, and thus the power of the government is unjust.
Slashdot Mirror
The characters are not displayed in the same way, I cannot paste cyrillic in slashdot, but the difference between the y and the russian u is visible, the tail of the y is rounder.
Of course, it leaves room for phishing attack, but they are not the same character. Not historically, not linguistically, not in encoding, not in display.
they are not the same, they just look very similar
!= py
Weird. They recognize the US is guilty but they just fine ? US infringement on the right of Antigua's casino is a continuous process but it looks like they're paying a one time fine. Wtf ?
mod parent up !
If someone starts creating new life, we're not worst off merely because he's the only one doing it, however, if they start getting effective monopolies through patents, that becomes a serious problem.
Yeah but I was a very awesome user of Opera, your two computer mobile device and brother in law are far to make up for it. In fact, unless you manage to package Opera with Storm, there's not much you can do.
What, no native SVG support? About time they get sued for it.
And it will be my last using Opera.
I don't have to interact. I can rest in zen contemplation of a wall. Besides I can also live and interact with my family. Why exactly couldn't I build my own roads on my property ? I can defend my property, it's not that hard and above all, it's MY problem. Why would I need to build my own computer when I can buy one made somewhere else in the world... if someone is willing to sell a computer to me that's all good and it doesn't commit me to anything else that the payment required by the manufacturer. *Who will keep gangs or the mob or indeed the government from taking over everything you have?* I didn't say I could do it, otherwise I'd do it, I said I should have the right to do, in other words: the government (or the mobs) *should* not try to take over what I have. Right now I am much more concerned with the government, a clear an present threat, than with the mobs. A contract is made on the own terms of all parties involved, there is no such thing as a "social contract".... call it reality, call it the element of violence in society, but not a contract. You talk of my degree of freedom as if it were a privilege. Freedom is not a priviledge, a privilege is something someone grants you, no one grants you freedom, but some people do take your freedom away.
Maybe by saying color I hurt the feelings of the Fluorescent Americats.
A COLOR !
The Economist coined that out of their ass? Seriously, the current acception of 'citizen' is a person taken as subject to the laws of a specific government. What does *that* has to do with voluntary distributed computing? Nothing! They just assume voluntary distributed computing = virtuous, virtuous = good citizen, and there bingo citizen becomes synonymous with virtuous. Participation in a common project becomes not a personal contribution, but a contribution from us, *as subjects of a government*.
I'm not nitpicking, this is scary.
It's funny, you accuse me of misrepresenting the feminist view by yourself misrepresenting my representation of the feminist view.
The claim that rape is worst than or at least comparable to murder has been repeatidly made by self-identified feminists, that's a fact.
The parent is making a claim about the climate level, not the climate rate of change. I am pointing out that his argument is fallacious, period.
*Populations shift with climate change and have established themselves according to the CURRENT climate*
There are two fallacies in your argument.
First, we have established ourselves according to past climate, the climate was not always what it currently is, we inherit evolution and establishment from previous period, so our current climate may not be optimal.
Second, even if we adapt to a specific environment, it does not imply we cannot be more fitted to another environment.
A blind person may adapt his habits to his handicap, if one day he becomes able to see, he can still be better off although he has previously adapted to blindness. (note to morons, this is not a comparison, this is an example illustrating a generic fallacy about adaptation applied by the parent to earth's climate)
Hyperbole ? Taxation is theft, conscription is slavery, war is murder of innocent civilians, shall I continue?
You can't do something without sollicitation and then present the bill. I wasn't educated in the US btw, but that's beside the point. Many products you buy are made in China and travelled on Chinese roads, why don't you pay taxes to China then?
What you're saying boils down to: but, buuuut, buuut government can't help providing you services. Well that's too bad for them, I don't give a shit, I don't want national defense, state roads or state police, and I don't want to pay for it.
By reading this message you are benefiting from my superior debating skills, but that doesn't give me the right to charge you for it, does it?
"We the people" do not express anything, we the people have 250,000,000 different opinions, there is no such thing as "what *we* consider a fair society".
You are mistaking as many do anarchy and anomy, anarchy is the absence of state, not the absence of law. You give no reason why anarchy would beget tyranny. And even if it did (it doesn't rest assured), that does not give Uncle Sam the right to smack me down. Fiat justicia ruat colelum.
Not only wouldn't the government have a duty to prevent me from using my property as I see fit, it doesn't have a right to do so. Besides, you are assuming the government is "special", your argument goes the other way around, why wouldn't it be according to you my duty to use the force of arms to impose my will on the US government?
I offer you to send you poetry by email every sunday, I'll charge you $100 for the privilege, unless you live in Mongolia. You can unsuscribe from this expensive newsletter by moving to Mongolia anytime. Why should I have to move from my land to opt out of government services? It's my land, not the government's.
As I said whether I am capable or incapable of living independently from my fellow men is beside the point. Maybe I'll just be alone on my patch of land and die of sorrow, maybe I'll become a zen monk, maybe I'll actually invite people and have a 24/24 party going on. That's *my* problem.
My relationship with my fellow humans is up to those fellow humans, not the community. The community has no right to decide who I can befriend, marry. In fact a community does not even "decide" anything, decisions are made by individuals. For example, my marrying someone involves me and that person, and no other people. Of course everyone is free to have an opinion on that, but I am not infringing on anyone's right.
The community has no right, individuals have rights, and even if it had, it would be incapable of exercising them having no mind or desire of its own. There is no such thing as a social contract.
In the US, *some people* have written a constitution and formed a government and granted themselves some power. I see no reason why I should consider that biding on my part. I too can claim to derive my power "from the people as a whole", it doesn't make it binding.
You present the crudest form of collectivism. There is no such thing as people's will or community's will, let alone decisions or rights. You are granting rights to abstractions and taking them away from real individuals, your ideas sir are the root of most evil on earth.
Following the societal norm of the time is no excuse for unethical behavior let alone crime. Our acts are inherently good or bad, independently from the judgment of society.
You claim morality is relative based on a difference of opinion (on the death penalty, on abortion), but that's assuming no one is wrong... because it's relative: you're really begging the question. Although a few people may believe gravity do not affect them (I can fliiiiiiiiiie) that doesn't mean the physical law of gravity is relative.
Social norms are relative, but the core of morality (not killing, not stealing...) is rooted in the unique nature of man as a rational animal.
Do you have a figure? What percentage of women that live through a rape commit suicide. That'd be an interesting figure to look at. Did you know the vast majority of rapes are commited by - tadzoum - the husband ! Certainly unacceptable and punishable, but maybe not something worth killing yourself for.
The feminist myth that rape is worst than death and can never be overcome is actually hurting rape victim by making them feel odd when they eventually heal from the psychological wound.
You're making a claim without a connection to the premises. You say we can't judge pas civilizations and societies by "modern standard" of right and wrong (whatever that is) because "we shouldn't refrain from embracing the progress thos societies brought in the arts, sciences, etc".
Uh? We can very well do both, judge them morally and embrace the progress they brought in the arts & sciences, I don't see the problem here. Someone may be a great scientist and bad person, there's no contradiction here.
What's also insidious in your comment is that we're supposed to implicitly accept moral relativism, the fact that accepted moral norms varied from culture to culture does not imply that morality itself is relative and merely reflects "modern standards".
I would obtain that property by buying it to its owner. I don't care if there is a deed organized by government. I may pay the owner with greenbacks or gold or peanuts or whatever he will accept in exchange for his land, that does not mean I consent to be governed.
I know very well I can't remove myself for the system, that's what I am complaining about. It's not that I don't have the physical capacity to be myself out of the systemn, is just that the government won't let me, it will actively prevent me from removing myself from the system.
My staying here does not mean I consent, no more than the grocer keeping his store consent to the mafia racket, no more than the man who, being robbed at gunpoint, consents to give is wallet.
So I can't opt-out of the government because the government says-so ? Sorry I don't want to be bullied. Anyway if you look at the thread, I was responsding to the claim that "the government derives its just power from the consent of the governed". Since I do not consent to be governed, the government powers are unjust when they apply to me. I suggest that if I don't vote and don't agress the U.S. government the U.S government should have no unsollicited business with me. If I own a piece of land in Nevada and declare publicly that I want no government services whatsoever, no justice, no schools, no social security, no defense, nothing, the government will still come and tax me. That is being governed against my will.
These are options that may help me avoid being governed by the US government against my will, but their mere existence doesn't change the fact that if I choose to stay in the US and don't vote, I am being governed against my will, and thus the power of the government is unjust.
I do not consent to be governed by the US government, end of story.