Hah! Yeah, that's what keeps me in the U.S. As a Libertarian, I sometimes get insanely sickened by this country on social issues, and our fondness for horrible suburbia, religion, creationism, etc. But we are pretty capitalist, with a lot fewer tax-funded social services than most any European country (at least that I know of). We have freedom of speech in our constitution. We drive on the right side of the road (which is why I could NEVER live in Australia)!
You show me a place with more constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, and lower taxes, fewer social services, and a more socially liberal culture, and I'll consider moving there. As far as I can tell, we are by far the free-est country there is. And with the free state project (lots of Libertarians moving to the state of New Hampshire) we might eventually have a state in the U.S. where there are virtually no state taxes, or laws which unfairly restrict personal freedom or property rights. Drool.
Wrong. Jabbin (based on Psi) and Tapioca are just two of the many clients that support Jingle (the media session extension to Jabber, used for the voice component of Google Talk) and are available for Linux.
This is simply ridiculous. Cryptologist David Chaum, for example, has created a couple of systems which use encoded receipts which allow the voter to later check that his vote was recorded properly (say by going online), but don't allow him to prove to a third party how he voted, thus satisfying voting regulations geared toward preventing vote selling (for those anti-free-market types, who don't believe you should be able to sell your vote).
These systems employ random processes, using seeds like the final closing price of the stock market, to select a set of random ballots from the pre-talley group for "decryption" by linking them to the final talley group. It can be statistically shown that just auditing a small number of the votes this way can make an undetected ballot forgery extremely likely to be detected. More than a few fraud votes become virtually impossible to go undetected.
The systems work, even if every off-the-shelf computer used as a voting machine (they can be put to use in schools and such during the interrims between elections) is running malicious code, instead of the proper open source code it's supposed to be running.
Why are we not using these types of systems?!
I AM PULLING MY HAIR OUT RIGHT NOW BECAUSE I DON'T FUCKING KNOWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!
>Buying up our spectrum like this installs a natural monopoly that is inefficient.
No, businesses are naturally efficient, because they want to make as much money as possible, and inefficiency equals lost money.
>A better system would be for public/gov to create a network of towers for wimax/wifi.
No, a better system would be to keep the government from interfering with the free market, such as by enforcing rent control, "affirmative" action, taxation, etc.
>I want to be the first to predict Google sues eBay for monopolistic practices or some other restriction on open and fair trade!
that's an oxymoron. using force to restrict a business from choosing which payments they accept is stopping them from excercising the right to run their business as they choose.
>I don't see it as within the rights of eBay to dictate how people accomplish the financial transactions for Rearranging the World's Junk, as they are merely the facilitators.
if the sellers want to accept google payments, they always reserve that right, and ebay cannot take it away. but they can stop them from selling _on ebay_.
i just called those evil bastards at 603.597.3500 (nashua police dept) and tried to leave a comment about the issue. i said something to the effect that all those who had anything to do with arresting mr. gonnon should be criminally chanrged, to which the oblivious lady replied, "yes, i believe he will be...audio taping them was a crime." "no no no...", i interjected, "he was on his own property. the crime was arresting him...i'm saying that those who were involed need to be criminally prosecuted."
of course, she replied that that would be "decided in a court of law", as if a court of law gets to decide what rights the man had to record people on *his own $*&G$*% property!!"*. i asked her to pass my comment along, and she said she wouldn't--that i'd have to speak to the desk manager. i said fine, put me through to him. within a few words we was repeating, "what's your name? who is this? whom am i speaking to?" and that sort thing. i replied, "that's not important; i'm a u.s. citizen and i have a comment." i got a few lines into what i was saying, very politely i should add, and he hung up.
so folks...call these bastards, and make their phones ring off the hook. if we can't mobilize a militia and get to their office and jail those criminals involved, at least we can annoy the heck out of them, and maybe send a signal that we're fed up with the criminal actions of government, and we want our freedom. no more of this being told what to do on our own property. we can't keep taking it like this. we've got to make a stand. so call these bastards and be as mean as you can to them. make their days hell.
of course, if we didn't have the theft known as "taxation" in effect, cops would all be privatized, and they wouldn't have some kind of elevated god-like status and the ability to tell you what you can or cannot record on your own *$#% private property! if a cop was sitting around eating doughnuts in his car, or wasting time on things that weren't really serving the wants of the people paying his company, he'd be out on his ass. this is exactly why i'm a libertarian.
i'm just shocked this happened in _new hampshire_, our supposed libertarian "homeland". the good citizens of that state ought to go to the local jail with guns, get those folks out, and throw the police in.
Re:I wish security were more accessible to the mas
on
PGP & GPG
·
· Score: -1
I love your sig. Wacha think about the free state project?
Gotta love government. They steal money by force like no other. But of course, it's "okay" be cause you got something out of the deal, even if it was incredibly inefficient, because of all those road workers getting paid 15 bucks an hour to hold a slow sign.
No need for sarcasm here at all. Free the fucking market. Get rid of this government regulation nonsense. Get rid of anti-monopoly laws. Get rid of the FDA. The only person who needs to be regulating the vast majority of the world is the consumer, with his currency.
>That's all *good quality* regulation should do: Recognize the long-term values of good behavior and consequences of bad behavior, with the goal of less resource-sucking and whiplash.
"Quality regulation" is an oxymoron. Let the consumer regulate things with his currency, and keep regulation the fuck out of the free market, you freedom hater.
>This is only a "wrong" under unrealistic libertarian theories that ignore the fact that the world does not and will not immediately conform to the hypothetical pure libertarian ideal in which their ideas supposedly work.
I am well aware that we don't live in a purely libertarian society, or anything close. I'm arguing why we should. The only thing "unrealistic" about libertarian principles, is that the world is full of crooks, who don't believe in a free market.
>> Yeah, and whenever I need a new car, I just go steal one out of a parking lot. Screw the advocates of "rights"--I like it! Pfft...if it weren't for the FCC, you'd have zillions of wireless broadband options.
>And not a damn one of them would work. Funny thing called "intereference"--go look up Shannon's law, please. I'm not ignorant of how they work--I have an amature radio license.
If they didn't work, people wouldn't pay for them, so of course they would work. Companies would have to cooperate, rather than use bloated beauracratic agencies funded by stolen money.
>It's also not "stealing" save from a warped, libertarian viewpoint.
Forcing people to give you their money is stealing, by definition. You can deny that till you're blue in the face, but it's still stealing no matter how you slice it.
>Rather, it's people working together to do something that benefits all of them, even if it shafts those who would rather exploit them.
Benefits all of them according to whom?! YOU?! Say I want to build a 30 meter tall tower to celebrate Ra; do I get to steal money out of your wallet to pay for it, even if you don't want it, if I just say, "Well hey man, it benefits you." Please put at least some basic thought into your twisted logic before you say such things.
>> No, you pull out your government issue revolver, instead of fighting fair.
>That IS fighting fair--you have the vote I do. If you are in the minority, you need to *convince* people either that your ideas are worth respecting (free speech) or that you are being legitimately harmed (discrimination), not whine. If you can't do either of these, you may simply have to face the fact that you are wrong. Your ideas are wrong. No one agrees with you. And for good reason.
Voting is irrelevant. My bank account isn't a democracy. I decide how my money shoud be spent, not you. If 99% of the population votes for a public school to be built, fine, they can put their money together and pay for it. If I don't want it, there's no reason I should be forced to. You're making the same standard arguments I hear from other socialists, time and time and time and TIME again. "It's okay for us to steal from you, because we voted that we could, and you had a vote too." Give me a break you *%#$% thugs.
>And if you complain that some votes are worth more than others, take your own advice and move, since it's so easy:-)
I don't have to move. I'm paying rent to live here, so living here is something I have the right to do. You, however, do not have the right to steal from me, no matter how many people you get to "vote" with you that you do. The only vote that counts is mine. My hard work, my money, my decision.
>Ironically, I believe some libertarians are doing that, with their "free state project."
I'm a member of the free state project actually. It's a horrid shameful fact that we are eventually faced with no other option than to move to get away from you thieving bottom-feeding socialists.
>The only other group I can name who ever was so desperately ignored as to do such a thing is the Cult of Scientology. I'll give libertarians credit--they are, at least, a step above them in my estimation.
Are you kidding me? Are your ideas so intellectually bankrupt that you'd rather go for an ad hominem than defend them? When faced with no good excuse for your thieving ways, you just co
>The telecoms did ***NOT*** risk their own capital, hard-earned or otherwise. They >built the infrastructure on huge government grants, rights-of-way, etc. We're still >waiting to see most of the improvement.
So two wrongs make a right?
>I wouldn't have any connection at all without the government sponsoring city-wide >wifi. Screw the libertarians, I like it.
Yeah, and whenever I need a new car, I just go steal one out of a parking lot. Screw the advocates of "rights"--I like it! Pfft...if it weren't for the FCC, you'd have zillions of wireless broadband options.
>Ummm, yeah. Here in this place I call "the real world" moving is a total pain in the >ass...
Yup. Life's not fair. Being an adult means dealing with this, not forcing people to be "fair" to you by threat of government force.
>and besides, we don't run from fights.
No, you pull out your government issue revolver, instead of fighting fair.
>Company wants to screw with me? I screw back. Legally. People come to me for >technical advice. Want a laptop? Hell no, you don't want a Vaio, get a ThinkPad >instead. And anything else I happen to think of to let customers know how badly >certain companies like Sony suck ass.
Yes, this would be one legitimate respect-for-rights way to do it, although I think it would be wrong to lie if that's what you were implying.
>Allowing data-discrimination is an anti-competetive act.
No, it's a competative act. It helps you make more money, and thrive as a business. If you knew anything about real-world economics, you'd understand this. Trust me, if it wasn't competative, companies wouldn't do it.
>In the real world, people hold grudges, like the really big one I have against Sony >for their business practices.
So people who don't like them don't have to buy their products. So why then do you feel it's okay to force them to do business as you see fit? If you aren't getting the service you want, and you're pissed because of it, then why don't you get some venture capitalists in a room with you, and draw up plans for a company that will give people like you what you want, and then be rich!
>Judges also understand something about sanctions.
I don't know what that is, but I can tell you what they don't understand--that sanctions are theft. Well, so are taxes, but that's a whole other can of worms.
>If the telecoms have ANY sense whatsoever, they will realize that the huge public >outcry
So why do you advocate wrongly forcing them to do business as others see fit?
>On a related note, if you saw who all supported Net Neutrality: the Christian >Coalition, the ACLU, the Gun Owners of America, MoveOn.org, etc., etc., etc. you >might realize that you are doing your political campaign far more harm than good by >posting that.
Let's see...libertarians are socially liberal, and economically conservative, soo...we dislike the Christian Coalition (in general). The ACLU shouldn't really matter, because they are primarily a social, not economic, rights action group. Moveon.org is a bunch of socialist pigs, and we don't believe in taxation or free market interference, so that pretty much makes perfect sense. Maybe you don't know what a libertarian is exactly. Go take the OK Cupid political quiz and get back with us.
>Even so, you forget what I already told you: it's bad for business to ignore angry >mobs, or to engage in anti-customer activities.
Forgetting this?! This is the very point he was making. Customers can vote with their dollar, so it there is no reason to violate the rights of a company's owners in order to give people what they want. Let them decide by deciding what to purchase or not purchase.
>Profit is not a right.
No, it's not. Lot's of businesses fail, and that's just life. Lots of Democrats and Republicans disagree, so they use stolen money (taxes) to prop up failin
Amen to that! People who praise this kind of legislation hate freedom. They hate the idea of the owner of a company's owners/shareholders getting to decide for themselves how they will do business, and it's good that we have some principled libertarians in here to set them straight. Thinking that you have the right to sue a company because they don't do what you want them to do, is the most outright disgusting lack of respect for freedom. Why not force them to give you some money while you're at it. Oh wait...you do...taxes.
You described perfectly how this "more regulation" is a "solution" to existing regulation! Get rid of the regulation that hinders the free market, and the consumers will get what they want. In a free market, consumers always get what they demand, as long as it's feasible. If they don't, that just means some brilliant entrepreneur is missing out on a huge opportunity to make a living giving it to them.
True, but he lied about it to a judge, which is a crime.
YES, WE ALL KNOW THAT! BUT THE POINT IS THAT WHAT HE DID WASN'T A CRIME, AND HE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ASKED ABOUT IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. HIS SEXUAL ACTS WITH CONSENTING ADULTS, ON OR OFF THE JOB HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH SEXUAL HARRASSMENT. SO THEY HAD NO OBLIGATION, AND NO RIGHT, TO ASK HIM SUCH A QUESTION.
And he lied, under oath, in court, which is a criminal offense. Quite a serious one.
NOT ONE BILLIONTH AS SERIOUS AS LYING TO GET US INTO AN ILLEGAL WAR THAT KILLED SOMETHING LIKE 100,000 PEOPLE (AND COUNTING). NOT ONE MILLIONTH AS SERIOUS AS ILLEGALLY WIRETAPPING PEOPLE.
I NEVER SAID CLINTON DIDN'T BREAK THE LAW. I'M JUST POINTING OUT THAT HIS LAW BREAKING WAS A LIE ABOUT A PERSONAL SEXUAL MATTER, THAT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE IT WAS NONE OF ANYONE'S BUSINESS.
LOL. FUCKING HILARIOUS. THE PROBLEM IS THAT YOU CAN'T TALK ABOUT OVERTHROWING YOUR GOVERNMENT, AND THAT'S WHAT DRIVES ME CRAZY. HOW CAN A GOVERNMENT, THAT IS SUPPOSEDLY DEMOCRATIC, TELL YOU THAT YOU CAN'T DECIDE TO TAKE IT OUT OF COMMISSION AND INSTALL A NEW ONCE? IT'S LIKE WAL-MART TELLING YOU THAT YOU CAN'T GO SHOP AT TARGET. FUCK YOU GOVERNMENT! BUILD MY ROADS AND PROTECT ME FROM GANG SHOOTINGS AND THIEVES. OTHER THAN THAT, STAY THE FUCK OUT OF MY PERSONAL LIFE, AND STOP USING MY TAX MONEY TO START WARS ON INNOCENT NATIONS FOR POWER AND OIL!
THIS IS WHY I USE OFF THE RECORD ENCRYPTION ON MY INSTANT MESSAGING.
CLINTON LIED ABOUT SOMETHING THAT WAS NOT A CRIME. BUSH HAS ADMITTED TO DOING SOMETHING THAT IS A CRIME, ALTHOUGH HE'S LIED ABOUT THE DETAILS AND THE EXTENT OF IT.
CLINTON LIED ABOUT A PERSONAL MATTER THAT THEY HAD NO RIGHT TO ASK HIM ABOUT IN THE FIRST PLACE, BECAUSE IT WASN'T A CRIME OR ANYTHING RELATED TO HIS JOB PERFORMANCE.
LET'S NOT MIX APPLES AND ORANGES HERE PAL.
--BEGIN GIBBERISH-- uauteahsnu tenhau teha sueha uhea duntesda nithueantuhensadusenda ea dteaueat uheast tnueha tnuetha nte hunstaeh unte asntduetn adie a ideta enotha nstehatni denta dienta dnsteoda ntdenta idet aiuod intha i o ditnua hisnteuoha snitedoatn idueatn ntehantehsuhoethun aethu a
e a te tneoha usnh etna i hau ntj hu ntoe huntoe hnt uoeh ntae hneto ae ht hatn s tnheo ho nte ntuhena eta eh tnh utneha ntent uhtnea uthea e hetuhantu ent huet nte tna heu atu tanuhetn atnhea tnuhena ueh a ueha teh antheantu entoa e inaoh unteh ant ent eontahutea nteh an uheo
utheo ue anoeh no ueoa uneo auneoh aunt ean tue a eueha ue au a u u uea ue ue u e uoe ueahue atnue ehu asuhe ueona utneh autne ue auntoea
tha ue tnehu tnean etha ne tnuh tna nte tne u enh una nh ntahu ne
thua nehu n u ea hun une aun hntuh enta hneah unteah u anuth etnau ans ht n o tuneo nteoh nohu tne hantenuh aeh ueoahu eah uneha unteh antena uae --END GIBBERISH--
there is zero evidence to show that the same process yielded a human and a chimp from some common ancestor.
You are gravely mistaken. The evidence for common ancestry is staggering.
1) The hierarchical taxonomy of all life, which applies well specifically to primates.
2) Comparitive anatomy -- if various organisms branched off from a common ancestor, we should expect homologous structures, and internal similarities which, outside the context of Darwinian evolution, make no sense. To take an especially noteworthy example, there is the panda's thumb, which is really just a sixth "digit" formed from one of the wrist bones. If this thumb had been intelligently placed there, we would have no reason to expect it to be formed from a wrist bone. We could expect to see all the wrist bones in place, and then a new bone added specifically for this purpose. Or we could expect to see a fundamentally different layout of the bones altogether, specifically tailored to suit the panda's niche. If Darwinian evolution is true, however, these types of structures make perfect sense. Organisms are always taking advantage of lucky "hacks" to their existing structure. Darwinian evolution is not always pretty, because it has no intelligence or foresight.
3) Comparative embryology -- despite an eventual development plan that leads various life forms to look radically dissimilar, initial fetal development between various organisms is remarkably similar. Many legless species like snakes and cetaceans, initially form leg buds in the embryological development, which are later reabsorbed before birth. These exist because of common ancestry. There is simply no other explanation for them.
4) Comparative biochemistry -- by looking at the number of synonymous differences in gene sequences between various organisms, such as the chimp and human, we can gain a reasonably good idea of when the two species diverged. It just so happens that this kind of analysis between humans and chimps yields a result consistent with the age of divergence as evinced by the fossil record. Strange coincidence! A specifically pertinent example would be the broken ascorbic acid gene in humans and chimps. It's the reason we get scurvy without a source of vitamin C. Humans and chimps both have this gene, which is non-functional, but happens to function well in other organisms. Ours is just defective. If you look at the genes of chimps and humans, there is a certain amount of mutational difference between our vitamin C genes. The fossil record shows that the orangutan is a more distance cousin of humans and chimps. Not surprisingly, there are even more variations between the organgutan's vitamin C gene, and those of the human and chimp. This all fits perfectly with Darwinian evolutionary theory, and has no other explanation.
5) Vestigial organs -- one of the most striking effects of Darwinian evolution is that of genetic remnants from ancestral organisms. Baleen whales in fetal development have teeth for a time, which are later reabsorbed before birth (the baleen is not teeth). This makes sense of course, because cetaceans evolved from wolf-like animals through a remarkably well documented series of intermediates. There are also blind cave fish and salamanders which still have non-functional eye remnants. In humans, we have wisdom teeth, which are usually problematic (they were for me!) and no longer fit in our jaws because of our decreased jaw size. Some people are born without them altogether, and do fine, if not better. We also get goose bumps, which serve no purpose to insulate us, since our hair is no longer thick as it once was. We get them often when we are cold, even though they do virtually nothing to benefit us. It should be noted that humans and chimps have about the same number of hairs, but ours just aren't as thick.
You'd falsify neo-Darwinian theory in a vast number of ways. First and foremost is the hierarchical taxonomy of all life on Earth. This is exactly what we would expect from a process of descent with modification. We don't see gene sequences, for instance, that violate the perfect hierarchical nesting structure. Out of all the myriad ways our genes could be arranged, the fact that they perfectly fit the idea of descent with mutation from common ancestors is striking.
The ascorbic acid gene in chimps and humans shows genetic variation consistent with the idea that humans divirged from chimps some 4 to 5 million years ago. Not surprisingly, the genetic difference is greater between these two species and the orangutan, from which we diverged from a common ancestor at an earlier point. If our findings weren't like this, it would spell grave danger for Darwinian evolution.
You have enormous misconceptions about evolution to think that we must test it by "forcing" species to evolve, and seeing whether they do, whatever this is supposed to mean. We have observed that mutations happen quite regularly. Given that the variations in genes between any two organisms are the factor that accounts for radically different development, such as the case with the banana and the giraffe, we have all the data we need to show that Darwinian evolution is totally realistic, plausible, feasible, however you want to put it. Given the complete lack of any rival explanations for biology, as well as the overwhelming profusion of evidence for Darwinian evolution, we are left with nothing but one obvious conclusion. Darwinian forces brought about life as we know it from our oldest microscopic ancestors, whether we understand every single detail of how this happened or not. The remarkable transitional fossils that document the evolution of modern cetaceans from wolf-like ancestors, horses from small cat-like ancestors, and mammals from reptilian ancestors, leave no room for any serious doubt in evolution.
You are also gravely mistaken to distinguish macro and micro evolution as you do. There is nothing inherently different between the two. Macro evolution is either the change of one species into another over time, or the divergence of a species into two or more species. The latter is quite feasible, is we know that population groups can become genetically isolated. At this point all that is required is the accumulation of enough mutations to eventually cause the two groups to no longer be reproductively compatible.
The former process is vastly harder to see, because it generally requires an expanse of time well beyond the human lifespan. It's like the evolution of language. Go back in written history over time, and you'll find that language looked progressively less like it does today. If you went back in time there would be some point at which you would no longer be conversationally compatible with speakers of the ancestors of your language today. All along the way, every generation would be speaking the "same language" as its parents, yet over large spaces of time we can say that a "new language" has come about, because it is radically different and incompatible with its progenitor. You could look back at a linguistic "timeline" and pick any point, and then move a few thousand, or maybe even several hundred years, and say that two plots on that timeline represent two "different languages". But again, looking at the overall history, you would just have one continuously complete and useful language, that would always be the "same language" as whatever followed in the next generation.
People who doubt Darwinian evolution, or are even proponents of creationism, ofter have an extremely hard time grappling with this fundamentally simple concept. You could even liken macro mutation to lining people up every few meters down an extremely long flat highway, and saying that two people are in the same "species" if they can see each other. I can see the guy in front of me, and he can see the guy in front of
Slashdot Mirror
http://rangevoting.org/IRVLetter.html
http://rangevoting.org/
nope. use jabbin (jabbin.com) or tapioca. or kopete (if you can stand looking at a "kde" app)
Hah! Yeah, that's what keeps me in the U.S. As a Libertarian, I sometimes get insanely sickened by this country on social issues, and our fondness for horrible suburbia, religion, creationism, etc. But we are pretty capitalist, with a lot fewer tax-funded social services than most any European country (at least that I know of). We have freedom of speech in our constitution. We drive on the right side of the road (which is why I could NEVER live in Australia)!
You show me a place with more constitutionally guaranteed freedoms, and lower taxes, fewer social services, and a more socially liberal culture, and I'll consider moving there. As far as I can tell, we are by far the free-est country there is. And with the free state project (lots of Libertarians moving to the state of New Hampshire) we might eventually have a state in the U.S. where there are virtually no state taxes, or laws which unfairly restrict personal freedom or property rights. Drool.
Wrong. Jabbin (based on Psi) and Tapioca are just two of the many clients that support Jingle (the media session extension to Jabber, used for the voice component of Google Talk) and are available for Linux.
This is simply ridiculous. Cryptologist David Chaum, for example, has created a couple of systems which use encoded receipts which allow the voter to later check that his vote was recorded properly (say by going online), but don't allow him to prove to a third party how he voted, thus satisfying voting regulations geared toward preventing vote selling (for those anti-free-market types, who don't believe you should be able to sell your vote).
These systems employ random processes, using seeds like the final closing price of the stock market, to select a set of random ballots from the pre-talley group for "decryption" by linking them to the final talley group. It can be statistically shown that just auditing a small number of the votes this way can make an undetected ballot forgery extremely likely to be detected. More than a few fraud votes become virtually impossible to go undetected.
The systems work, even if every off-the-shelf computer used as a voting machine (they can be put to use in schools and such during the interrims between elections) is running malicious code, instead of the proper open source code it's supposed to be running.
Why are we not using these types of systems?!
I AM PULLING MY HAIR OUT RIGHT NOW BECAUSE I DON'T FUCKING KNOWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!!
http://punchscan.org/
>Buying up our spectrum like this installs a natural monopoly that is inefficient.
No, businesses are naturally efficient, because they want to make as much money as possible, and inefficiency equals lost money.
>A better system would be for public/gov to create a network of towers for wimax/wifi.
No, a better system would be to keep the government from interfering with the free market, such as by enforcing rent control, "affirmative" action, taxation, etc.
>I want to be the first to predict Google sues eBay for monopolistic practices or some other restriction on open and fair trade!
that's an oxymoron. using force to restrict a business from choosing which payments they accept is stopping them from excercising the right to run their business as they choose.
>I don't see it as within the rights of eBay to dictate how people accomplish the financial transactions for Rearranging the World's Junk, as they are merely the facilitators.
if the sellers want to accept google payments, they always reserve that right, and ebay cannot take it away. but they can stop them from selling _on ebay_.
oh my goodness...that's the coolest thing this libertarian has ever seen!
;)
they need to implement chaumian anonymous digital cash.
i just called those evil bastards at 603.597.3500 (nashua police dept) and tried to leave a comment about the issue. i said something to the effect that all those who had anything to do with arresting mr. gonnon should be criminally chanrged, to which the oblivious lady replied, "yes, i believe he will be...audio taping them was a crime." "no no no...", i interjected, "he was on his own property. the crime was arresting him...i'm saying that those who were involed need to be criminally prosecuted."
of course, she replied that that would be "decided in a court of law", as if a court of law gets to decide what rights the man had to record people on *his own $*&G$*% property!!"*. i asked her to pass my comment along, and she said she wouldn't--that i'd have to speak to the desk manager. i said fine, put me through to him. within a few words we was repeating, "what's your name? who is this? whom am i speaking to?" and that sort thing. i replied, "that's not important; i'm a u.s. citizen and i have a comment." i got a few lines into what i was saying, very politely i should add, and he hung up.
so folks...call these bastards, and make their phones ring off the hook. if we can't mobilize a militia and get to their office and jail those criminals involved, at least we can annoy the heck out of them, and maybe send a signal that we're fed up with the criminal actions of government, and we want our freedom. no more of this being told what to do on our own property. we can't keep taking it like this. we've got to make a stand. so call these bastards and be as mean as you can to them. make their days hell.
your brother in liberty!
of course, if we didn't have the theft known as "taxation" in effect, cops would all be privatized, and they wouldn't have some kind of elevated god-like status and the ability to tell you what you can or cannot record on your own *$#% private property! if a cop was sitting around eating doughnuts in his car, or wasting time on things that weren't really serving the wants of the people paying his company, he'd be out on his ass. this is exactly why i'm a libertarian.
i'm just shocked this happened in _new hampshire_, our supposed libertarian "homeland". the good citizens of that state ought to go to the local jail with guns, get those folks out, and throw the police in.
I love your sig. Wacha think about the free state project?
Gotta love government. They steal money by force like no other. But of course, it's "okay" be cause you got something out of the deal, even if it was incredibly inefficient, because of all those road workers getting paid 15 bucks an hour to hold a slow sign.
No need for sarcasm here at all. Free the fucking market. Get rid of this government regulation nonsense. Get rid of anti-monopoly laws. Get rid of the FDA. The only person who needs to be regulating the vast majority of the world is the consumer, with his currency.
>That's all *good quality* regulation should do: Recognize the long-term values of good behavior and consequences of bad behavior, with the goal of less resource-sucking and whiplash.
"Quality regulation" is an oxymoron. Let the consumer regulate things with his currency, and keep regulation the fuck out of the free market, you freedom hater.
>> So two wrongs make a right?
:-)
>This is only a "wrong" under unrealistic libertarian theories that ignore the fact that the world does not and will not immediately conform to the hypothetical pure libertarian ideal in which their ideas supposedly work.
I am well aware that we don't live in a purely libertarian society, or anything close. I'm arguing why we should. The only thing "unrealistic" about libertarian principles, is that the world is full of crooks, who don't believe in a free market.
>> Yeah, and whenever I need a new car, I just go steal one out of a parking lot. Screw the advocates of "rights"--I like it! Pfft...if it weren't for the FCC, you'd have zillions of wireless broadband options.
>And not a damn one of them would work. Funny thing called "intereference"--go look up Shannon's law, please. I'm not ignorant of how they work--I have an amature radio license.
If they didn't work, people wouldn't pay for them, so of course they would work. Companies would have to cooperate, rather than use bloated beauracratic agencies funded by stolen money.
>It's also not "stealing" save from a warped, libertarian viewpoint.
Forcing people to give you their money is stealing, by definition. You can deny that till you're blue in the face, but it's still stealing no matter how you slice it.
>Rather, it's people working together to do something that benefits all of them, even if it shafts those who would rather exploit them.
Benefits all of them according to whom?! YOU?! Say I want to build a 30 meter tall tower to celebrate Ra; do I get to steal money out of your wallet to pay for it, even if you don't want it, if I just say, "Well hey man, it benefits you." Please put at least some basic thought into your twisted logic before you say such things.
>> No, you pull out your government issue revolver, instead of fighting fair.
>That IS fighting fair--you have the vote I do. If you are in the minority, you need to *convince* people either that your ideas are worth respecting (free speech) or that you are being legitimately harmed (discrimination), not whine. If you can't do either of these, you may simply have to face the fact that you are wrong. Your ideas are wrong. No one agrees with you. And for good reason.
Voting is irrelevant. My bank account isn't a democracy. I decide how my money shoud be spent, not you. If 99% of the population votes for a public school to be built, fine, they can put their money together and pay for it. If I don't want it, there's no reason I should be forced to. You're making the same standard arguments I hear from other socialists, time and time and time and TIME again. "It's okay for us to steal from you, because we voted that we could, and you had a vote too." Give me a break you *%#$% thugs.
>And if you complain that some votes are worth more than others, take your own advice and move, since it's so easy
I don't have to move. I'm paying rent to live here, so living here is something I have the right to do. You, however, do not have the right to steal from me, no matter how many people you get to "vote" with you that you do. The only vote that counts is mine. My hard work, my money, my decision.
>Ironically, I believe some libertarians are doing that, with their "free state project."
I'm a member of the free state project actually. It's a horrid shameful fact that we are eventually faced with no other option than to move to get away from you thieving bottom-feeding socialists.
>The only other group I can name who ever was so desperately ignored as to do such a thing is the Cult of Scientology. I'll give libertarians credit--they are, at least, a step above them in my estimation.
Are you kidding me? Are your ideas so intellectually bankrupt that you'd rather go for an ad hominem than defend them? When faced with no good excuse for your thieving ways, you just co
>The telecoms did ***NOT*** risk their own capital, hard-earned or otherwise. They >built the infrastructure on huge government grants, rights-of-way, etc. We're still >waiting to see most of the improvement.
So two wrongs make a right?
>I wouldn't have any connection at all without the government sponsoring city-wide >wifi. Screw the libertarians, I like it.
Yeah, and whenever I need a new car, I just go steal one out of a parking lot. Screw the advocates of "rights"--I like it! Pfft...if it weren't for the FCC, you'd have zillions of wireless broadband options.
>Ummm, yeah. Here in this place I call "the real world" moving is a total pain in the >ass...
Yup. Life's not fair. Being an adult means dealing with this, not forcing people to be "fair" to you by threat of government force.
>and besides, we don't run from fights.
No, you pull out your government issue revolver, instead of fighting fair.
>Company wants to screw with me? I screw back. Legally. People come to me for >technical advice. Want a laptop? Hell no, you don't want a Vaio, get a ThinkPad >instead. And anything else I happen to think of to let customers know how badly >certain companies like Sony suck ass.
Yes, this would be one legitimate respect-for-rights way to do it, although I think it would be wrong to lie if that's what you were implying.
>Allowing data-discrimination is an anti-competetive act.
No, it's a competative act. It helps you make more money, and thrive as a business. If you knew anything about real-world economics, you'd understand this. Trust me, if it wasn't competative, companies wouldn't do it.
>In the real world, people hold grudges, like the really big one I have against Sony >for their business practices.
So people who don't like them don't have to buy their products. So why then do you feel it's okay to force them to do business as you see fit? If you aren't getting the service you want, and you're pissed because of it, then why don't you get some venture capitalists in a room with you, and draw up plans for a company that will give people like you what you want, and then be rich!
>Judges also understand something about sanctions.
I don't know what that is, but I can tell you what they don't understand--that sanctions are theft. Well, so are taxes, but that's a whole other can of worms.
>If the telecoms have ANY sense whatsoever, they will realize that the huge public >outcry
So why do you advocate wrongly forcing them to do business as others see fit?
>On a related note, if you saw who all supported Net Neutrality: the Christian >Coalition, the ACLU, the Gun Owners of America, MoveOn.org, etc., etc., etc. you >might realize that you are doing your political campaign far more harm than good by >posting that.
Let's see...libertarians are socially liberal, and economically conservative, soo...we dislike the Christian Coalition (in general). The ACLU shouldn't really matter, because they are primarily a social, not economic, rights action group. Moveon.org is a bunch of socialist pigs, and we don't believe in taxation or free market interference, so that pretty much makes perfect sense. Maybe you don't know what a libertarian is exactly. Go take the OK Cupid political quiz and get back with us.
>Even so, you forget what I already told you: it's bad for business to ignore angry >mobs, or to engage in anti-customer activities.
Forgetting this?! This is the very point he was making. Customers can vote with their dollar, so it there is no reason to violate the rights of a company's owners in order to give people what they want. Let them decide by deciding what to purchase or not purchase.
>Profit is not a right.
No, it's not. Lot's of businesses fail, and that's just life. Lots of Democrats and Republicans disagree, so they use stolen money (taxes) to prop up failin
Amen to that! People who praise this kind of legislation hate freedom. They hate the idea of the owner of a company's owners/shareholders getting to decide for themselves how they will do business, and it's good that we have some principled libertarians in here to set them straight. Thinking that you have the right to sue a company because they don't do what you want them to do, is the most outright disgusting lack of respect for freedom. Why not force them to give you some money while you're at it. Oh wait...you do...taxes.
You described perfectly how this "more regulation" is a "solution" to existing regulation! Get rid of the regulation that hinders the free market, and the consumers will get what they want. In a free market, consumers always get what they demand, as long as it's feasible. If they don't, that just means some brilliant entrepreneur is missing out on a huge opportunity to make a living giving it to them.
Good job,
Clay Shentrup
San Francisco, CA
A-MOTHERFUCKIN-MEN!
--uetauesantoheuetasehtasuetnsao
YUP
HEH..YOU CAUGHT ME!
KAJ MI ANKA POVAS PAROLI I TIUN LINGVON PER MIA KLAVARANON, KAJ EBLE TIO ESTAS E PLI INTERESA FAKTO. IS RELEGO AMIKO.
--BEGIN UGLY REDUNDANT ILLOGICAL LOWERCASE LETTERS--
thaue hnatuh enstah unte hasnthentauhnte hant huesnta h
eh auteohusatoh untseo hunstoeh untsaoeh utnoeh usnoe uoe
ueauteahutneohantsuentoha ntuehonas huentha tuh et ahu
hu tea nuheosna unteoh ants ehuntoha unteohan ueo etna
--END--
YES, WE ALL KNOW THAT! BUT THE POINT IS THAT WHAT HE DID WASN'T A CRIME, AND HE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ASKED ABOUT IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. HIS SEXUAL ACTS WITH CONSENTING ADULTS, ON OR OFF THE JOB HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH SEXUAL HARRASSMENT. SO THEY HAD NO OBLIGATION, AND NO RIGHT, TO ASK HIM SUCH A QUESTION.
NOT ONE BILLIONTH AS SERIOUS AS LYING TO GET US INTO AN ILLEGAL WAR THAT KILLED SOMETHING LIKE 100,000 PEOPLE (AND COUNTING). NOT ONE MILLIONTH AS SERIOUS AS ILLEGALLY WIRETAPPING PEOPLE.
I NEVER SAID CLINTON DIDN'T BREAK THE LAW. I'M JUST POINTING OUT THAT HIS LAW BREAKING WAS A LIE ABOUT A PERSONAL SEXUAL MATTER, THAT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE IT WAS NONE OF ANYONE'S BUSINESS.
--BEGIN LOWERCASE--
htnu hnetah unste hantsuhetna husnte hasntuhtnseah ntehsnat heoa
eah uteh as nuheonsta hutnseoh atnuheoanstu hetnoha utnseonsta uheotna h
eoa utheoatns uhtnesoha utnso antsuheotnsa hustnojh ustneoah nsutha
uea tnuheosta uhsenoha utnse hanstuh etnsoa hunsteo haunthe stnaheu
ahoetn uhoaesnt uheontsa hutneo ahutnseoh autnhuetnh auntshesnt uaheo
u heotn uhsnteo huntseoh autnse hatsn uheotsna husnetoha utnseahs ntueo
a hutneoh auseostna uhetnsa hutne hautneohstna uheonts uhansoet uhsntoea
--END LOWERCASE--
LOL. FUCKING HILARIOUS. THE PROBLEM IS THAT YOU CAN'T TALK ABOUT OVERTHROWING YOUR GOVERNMENT, AND THAT'S WHAT DRIVES ME CRAZY. HOW CAN A GOVERNMENT, THAT IS SUPPOSEDLY DEMOCRATIC, TELL YOU THAT YOU CAN'T DECIDE TO TAKE IT OUT OF COMMISSION AND INSTALL A NEW ONCE? IT'S LIKE WAL-MART TELLING YOU THAT YOU CAN'T GO SHOP AT TARGET. FUCK YOU GOVERNMENT! BUILD MY ROADS AND PROTECT ME FROM GANG SHOOTINGS AND THIEVES. OTHER THAN THAT, STAY THE FUCK OUT OF MY PERSONAL LIFE, AND STOP USING MY TAX MONEY TO START WARS ON INNOCENT NATIONS FOR POWER AND OIL!
u ntehtsauen toehuoethuoeh ntsoahuontsuahoeh utnohunteoahusea
THIS IS WHY I USE OFF THE RECORD ENCRYPTION ON MY INSTANT MESSAGING.
--BEGIN LOWERCASE--
austheatuhnetahuntehanutehanstuhentauhenthaunteha
authesahuetnsahustnehaunstehanstuheontahueonsthau
autehasuhetsnahutensohautnoehuntaoe ueonahuntseoadunehauntehas
uetahuseohauntseohatnuhentsoahunestahunetshauntoe
uhetonahuentsahunteohuasnoeuhentahusnehantseuhtno
uthesahutensahutneohu oeath utneoah utneoa huntse hatnuhe tnahu
eoha tnseoha usnthe atnsuheonsta uhetnsoah untseoh auntseoh ausnte
thuesahuthtn tehunto tho te theutn onthueuaueahuste hanstu hentah
h tnahntu heont hnteo hunteoha ntuheonta huneto hants husnte hasue
utneo husnao hutnoea hunsteo haunshentsuhansot hunstoehu ntha s
--END LOWERCASE--
CLINTON LIED ABOUT SOMETHING THAT WAS NOT A CRIME. BUSH HAS ADMITTED TO DOING SOMETHING THAT IS A CRIME, ALTHOUGH HE'S LIED ABOUT THE DETAILS AND THE EXTENT OF IT.
CLINTON LIED ABOUT A PERSONAL MATTER THAT THEY HAD NO RIGHT TO ASK HIM ABOUT IN THE FIRST PLACE, BECAUSE IT WASN'T A CRIME OR ANYTHING RELATED TO HIS JOB PERFORMANCE.
LET'S NOT MIX APPLES AND ORANGES HERE PAL.
--BEGIN GIBBERISH--
uauteahsnu tenhau teha sueha uhea duntesda nithueantuhensadusenda
ea dteaueat uheast tnueha tnuetha nte hunstaeh unte asntduetn adie
a ideta enotha nstehatni denta dienta dnsteoda ntdenta idet aiuod intha i
o ditnua hisnteuoha snitedoatn idueatn ntehantehsuhoethun aethu a
e
a te tneoha usnh etna i hau ntj hu ntoe huntoe hnt uoeh ntae hneto ae
ht hatn s tnheo ho nte ntuhena eta eh tnh utneha ntent uhtnea uthea
e hetuhantu ent huet nte tna heu atu tanuhetn atnhea tnuhena ueh a
ueha teh antheantu entoa e inaoh unteh ant ent eontahutea nteh an uheo
utheo ue anoeh no ueoa uneo auneoh aunt ean tue a eueha ue au a u
u uea ue ue u e uoe ueahue atnue ehu asuhe ueona utneh autne ue auntoea
tha ue tnehu tnean etha ne tnuh tna nte tne u enh una nh ntahu ne
thua nehu n u ea hun une aun hntuh enta hneah unteah u anuth etnau ans ht n
o tuneo nteoh nohu tne hantenuh aeh ueoahu eah uneha unteh antena uae
--END GIBBERISH--
You are gravely mistaken. The evidence for common ancestry is staggering.
1) The hierarchical taxonomy of all life, which applies well specifically to primates.
2) Comparitive anatomy -- if various organisms branched off from a common ancestor, we should expect homologous structures, and internal similarities which, outside the context of Darwinian evolution, make no sense. To take an especially noteworthy example, there is the panda's thumb, which is really just a sixth "digit" formed from one of the wrist bones. If this thumb had been intelligently placed there, we would have no reason to expect it to be formed from a wrist bone. We could expect to see all the wrist bones in place, and then a new bone added specifically for this purpose. Or we could expect to see a fundamentally different layout of the bones altogether, specifically tailored to suit the panda's niche. If Darwinian evolution is true, however, these types of structures make perfect sense. Organisms are always taking advantage of lucky "hacks" to their existing structure. Darwinian evolution is not always pretty, because it has no intelligence or foresight.
3) Comparative embryology -- despite an eventual development plan that leads various life forms to look radically dissimilar, initial fetal development between various organisms is remarkably similar. Many legless species like snakes and cetaceans, initially form leg buds in the embryological development, which are later reabsorbed before birth. These exist because of common ancestry. There is simply no other explanation for them.
4) Comparative biochemistry -- by looking at the number of synonymous differences in gene sequences between various organisms, such as the chimp and human, we can gain a reasonably good idea of when the two species diverged. It just so happens that this kind of analysis between humans and chimps yields a result consistent with the age of divergence as evinced by the fossil record. Strange coincidence! A specifically pertinent example would be the broken ascorbic acid gene in humans and chimps. It's the reason we get scurvy without a source of vitamin C. Humans and chimps both have this gene, which is non-functional, but happens to function well in other organisms. Ours is just defective. If you look at the genes of chimps and humans, there is a certain amount of mutational difference between our vitamin C genes. The fossil record shows that the orangutan is a more distance cousin of humans and chimps. Not surprisingly, there are even more variations between the organgutan's vitamin C gene, and those of the human and chimp. This all fits perfectly with Darwinian evolutionary theory, and has no other explanation.
5) Vestigial organs -- one of the most striking effects of Darwinian evolution is that of genetic remnants from ancestral organisms. Baleen whales in fetal development have teeth for a time, which are later reabsorbed before birth (the baleen is not teeth). This makes sense of course, because cetaceans evolved from wolf-like animals through a remarkably well documented series of intermediates. There are also blind cave fish and salamanders which still have non-functional eye remnants. In humans, we have wisdom teeth, which are usually problematic (they were for me!) and no longer fit in our jaws because of our decreased jaw size. Some people are born without them altogether, and do fine, if not better. We also get goose bumps, which serve no purpose to insulate us, since our hair is no longer thick as it once was. We get them often when we are cold, even though they do virtually nothing to benefit us. It should be noted that humans and chimps have about the same number of hairs, but ours just aren't as thick.
6) Biogeogra
You'd falsify neo-Darwinian theory in a vast number of ways. First and foremost is the hierarchical taxonomy of all life on Earth. This is exactly what we would expect from a process of descent with modification. We don't see gene sequences, for instance, that violate the perfect hierarchical nesting structure. Out of all the myriad ways our genes could be arranged, the fact that they perfectly fit the idea of descent with mutation from common ancestors is striking.
The ascorbic acid gene in chimps and humans shows genetic variation consistent with the idea that humans divirged from chimps some 4 to 5 million years ago. Not surprisingly, the genetic difference is greater between these two species and the orangutan, from which we diverged from a common ancestor at an earlier point. If our findings weren't like this, it would spell grave danger for Darwinian evolution.
You have enormous misconceptions about evolution to think that we must test it by "forcing" species to evolve, and seeing whether they do, whatever this is supposed to mean. We have observed that mutations happen quite regularly. Given that the variations in genes between any two organisms are the factor that accounts for radically different development, such as the case with the banana and the giraffe, we have all the data we need to show that Darwinian evolution is totally realistic, plausible, feasible, however you want to put it. Given the complete lack of any rival explanations for biology, as well as the overwhelming profusion of evidence for Darwinian evolution, we are left with nothing but one obvious conclusion. Darwinian forces brought about life as we know it from our oldest microscopic ancestors, whether we understand every single detail of how this happened or not. The remarkable transitional fossils that document the evolution of modern cetaceans from wolf-like ancestors, horses from small cat-like ancestors, and mammals from reptilian ancestors, leave no room for any serious doubt in evolution.
You are also gravely mistaken to distinguish macro and micro evolution as you do. There is nothing inherently different between the two. Macro evolution is either the change of one species into another over time, or the divergence of a species into two or more species. The latter is quite feasible, is we know that population groups can become genetically isolated. At this point all that is required is the accumulation of enough mutations to eventually cause the two groups to no longer be reproductively compatible.
The former process is vastly harder to see, because it generally requires an expanse of time well beyond the human lifespan. It's like the evolution of language. Go back in written history over time, and you'll find that language looked progressively less like it does today. If you went back in time there would be some point at which you would no longer be conversationally compatible with speakers of the ancestors of your language today. All along the way, every generation would be speaking the "same language" as its parents, yet over large spaces of time we can say that a "new language" has come about, because it is radically different and incompatible with its progenitor. You could look back at a linguistic "timeline" and pick any point, and then move a few thousand, or maybe even several hundred years, and say that two plots on that timeline represent two "different languages". But again, looking at the overall history, you would just have one continuously complete and useful language, that would always be the "same language" as whatever followed in the next generation.
People who doubt Darwinian evolution, or are even proponents of creationism, ofter have an extremely hard time grappling with this fundamentally simple concept. You could even liken macro mutation to lining people up every few meters down an extremely long flat highway, and saying that two people are in the same "species" if they can see each other. I can see the guy in front of me, and he can see the guy in front of