Sorry, but $2-36 billion in subsidies for the entire oil industry (from both links, the first I'm pretty sure is extremely inflated given the fact that even Greenpeace gives $35 billion as their highest estimate) doesn't seem that significant,
So, billions of dollars in subsidies to a big industry don't count as subsidies, because the industry is so big? That's some wonderful reasoning/apologia you've got going there.
Yeah, what I'm puzzled about is what the ad is supposed to mean, and why I'm supposed to want the phone because of it, not because of some exposed nipples.
Also, I was surprised to see the article actually did refer to "smoking glassware", I had assumed that was an alarmist mis-interpretation of "smoked glass",
I thought that it meant that they found some bongs and/or crack pipes.
Shoemakers never have good shoes themselves, their best work and materials always goes to others.
When was the last time you bought shoes? Typical shoemakers, like Nike, use the cheapest materials possible. The people who own and run these companies don't wear the shitty shoes produced by their company, they buy much better ones that most of their customers can't afford.
Flash content on the web represents a very large and significant portion of contemporary web experience
No, it doesn't. At least for me. I haven't used Flash on the web for months. Then again, I don't browse shitty websites. I guess if 90% of your web browsing is visiting shitty sites, you might see a lot more Flash.
The GPL maximizes the freedom of the end users, and software exists solely to be used.
Not true. Software also exists as an asset to be profited from. For example, if you owned IP right to Photoshop, is would be useful to you as an income generator, even if you never actually used Photoshop in your entire life.
It's spelled "Gordon Ramsay" you **** ****ing ***hole piece of ****.
No, he was talking about Gordon Ramses, Egypt's premier mother****ing goat-****ing, ****-molesting son of a dirty **** celebrity chef, with the ****** and the ****** action with the fist and the ******* with one cup who likes to ********* Sanchez with your cousin and the ******* with a camel on the ***** River Nile.
A technical, hardware, software, and geek usability failure maybe;
A technical, hardware and software failure? Ooookaaayyy... what evidence do you have that there are technical problems with it, that the hardware and software is faulty? Or that it's hard for geeks to use? In other words, just what the hell are you talking about?
Here in the UK, the Green Party has never been elected to a seat in Parliament, however just by standing and taking votes from the other parties they have managed to get their platform onto the agenda of the main parties - they've essentially won the argument. If the PPUK can emulate that, we'd consider it a success.
But what if you win enough votes to govern the country? Would you turn that down?
Even if we won all 10 seats we couldn't form a government.
So, you're committing fraud on the people. If you don't believe your party capable of governing, why are you running?
How is one person going to become part of the government?
By being elected to a seat in the government? Jesus fuck, you're a member of a political party, and don't even understand the basics of government?
You don't have to be in the government (have cabinet posts, i.e. control the executive branch) to govern.
Yes, you do. (with the exception of your bracketed clause)
You still have full legislative influence by being in parliament.
Which is the same thing as being in the government.
For instance, the Swedish Greens have never been in government, but have succeeded in influencing lots of legislation.
That's not the same thing as governing. It's influencing government.
To make an analogy to US politics, what you're saying is akin to it being dishonest to run for Congress if you have no intention of seeking the Presidency.
No, I'm not saying anything like that. I'm saying that if you nominate yourself as a political candidate, and people vote for you, then you are expected to take the position, and do the job people voted for you to do. In other words, govern.
The entire premise of forming a political party is to be in government. Why else would you do such a thing? It amounts to an act of fraud on the citizens to form a political party without aiming to govern.
At least here in the UK rolling back surveillance & defending individual privacy is part of our platform. Just look at the three bullet points on our front page: http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/
OK, so that seems a bit schizophrenic. You want to increase privacy, but also want to "let information be free" in terms of allowing sharing of information. But increased privacy is the opposite of sharing information, it's increased control over it.
Pirate can be changed into Privacy - still a P, so not such a change.
How would changing the name to the "Privacy Party" be relevant? If it's not the exact opposite of what the party stands for, it's at least highly tangential. The Pirate Party stands for sharing information, not privacy.
Slashdot Mirror
It's the lost city of Atlantis!
I'm talking about people who actually make shoes, whooooosh.
So, you're talking about companies like Nike, then.
Sorry, but $2-36 billion in subsidies for the entire oil industry (from both links, the first I'm pretty sure is extremely inflated given the fact that even Greenpeace gives $35 billion as their highest estimate) doesn't seem that significant,
So, billions of dollars in subsidies to a big industry don't count as subsidies, because the industry is so big? That's some wonderful reasoning/apologia you've got going there.
Yeah, what I'm puzzled about is what the ad is supposed to mean, and why I'm supposed to want the phone because of it, not because of some exposed nipples.
I'm continually surprised by how much crap everyone is willing to put up with from Apple, while worshiping the ground that Steve Jobs walks on.
I'm not sure why you're surprised, because they don't. 99% of people who buy Apple products barely even know who Steve Jobs is, let alone worship him.
Also, I was surprised to see the article actually did refer to "smoking glassware", I had assumed that was an alarmist mis-interpretation of "smoked glass",
I thought that it meant that they found some bongs and/or crack pipes.
It's a Bart sales bonanza, everything must go!
The quote is actually "Everything about me must go!
Shoemakers never have good shoes themselves, their best work and materials always goes to others.
When was the last time you bought shoes? Typical shoemakers, like Nike, use the cheapest materials possible. The people who own and run these companies don't wear the shitty shoes produced by their company, they buy much better ones that most of their customers can't afford.
First Bjork, now this. If you keep going like this, you'll soon rival Canada as an evil global threat.
You have to think Big Tobacco is stuffing money in their pocket to strengthen the legitmacy of this ban request
Why do I have to think that?
The App store has a MSNBC app for political cartoons. How is that any different?
It's not. It's just that Apple's rejection of apps is arbitrary, inconsistent and bizarre. I thought that this fact was already well-known.
There were stories about Courier on slashdot months before it was released, too (not that it's been released yet).
Flash content on the web represents a very large and significant portion of contemporary web experience
No, it doesn't. At least for me. I haven't used Flash on the web for months. Then again, I don't browse shitty websites. I guess if 90% of your web browsing is visiting shitty sites, you might see a lot more Flash.
The GPL maximizes the freedom of the end users, and software exists solely to be used.
Not true. Software also exists as an asset to be profited from. For example, if you owned IP right to Photoshop, is would be useful to you as an income generator, even if you never actually used Photoshop in your entire life.
It's spelled "Gordon Ramsay" you **** ****ing ***hole piece of ****.
No, he was talking about Gordon Ramses, Egypt's premier mother****ing goat-****ing, ****-molesting son of a dirty **** celebrity chef, with the ****** and the ****** action with the fist and the ******* with one cup who likes to ********* Sanchez with your cousin and the ******* with a camel on the ***** River Nile.
A technical, hardware, software, and geek usability failure maybe;
A technical, hardware and software failure? Ooookaaayyy... what evidence do you have that there are technical problems with it, that the hardware and software is faulty? Or that it's hard for geeks to use? In other words, just what the hell are you talking about?
OK, then it should also be noted that it is false. The pirates are acting for personal gain, not to protect the country.
I can still be in Parliament as an MP (member of a political party or not) but not be part of the government.
That doesn't make any sense. If you are in Parliament, then you are one of the people governing the country - i.e, you are "in government."
just sharing between individuals would be decriminalized.
So, sharing my personal data is OK, as long as it's between individuals?
Here in the UK, the Green Party has never been elected to a seat in Parliament, however just by standing and taking votes from the other parties they have managed to get their platform onto the agenda of the main parties - they've essentially won the argument. If the PPUK can emulate that, we'd consider it a success.
But what if you win enough votes to govern the country? Would you turn that down?
Even if we won all 10 seats we couldn't form a government.
So, you're committing fraud on the people. If you don't believe your party capable of governing, why are you running?
How is one person going to become part of the government?
By being elected to a seat in the government? Jesus fuck, you're a member of a political party, and don't even understand the basics of government?
You don't have to be in the government (have cabinet posts, i.e. control the executive branch) to govern.
Yes, you do. (with the exception of your bracketed clause)
You still have full legislative influence by being in parliament.
Which is the same thing as being in the government.
For instance, the Swedish Greens have never been in government, but have succeeded in influencing lots of legislation.
That's not the same thing as governing. It's influencing government.
To make an analogy to US politics, what you're saying is akin to it being dishonest to run for Congress if you have no intention of seeking the Presidency.
No, I'm not saying anything like that. I'm saying that if you nominate yourself as a political candidate, and people vote for you, then you are expected to take the position, and do the job people voted for you to do. In other words, govern.
Who says their goal is to be in government?
The entire premise of forming a political party is to be in government. Why else would you do such a thing? It amounts to an act of fraud on the citizens to form a political party without aiming to govern.
Have you actually looked at our policies?
No, I haven't.
At least here in the UK rolling back surveillance & defending individual privacy is part of our platform. Just look at the three bullet points on our front page: http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/
OK, so that seems a bit schizophrenic. You want to increase privacy, but also want to "let information be free" in terms of allowing sharing of information. But increased privacy is the opposite of sharing information, it's increased control over it.
In the past? You mean when there were even more pirates?
No, I mean in the recent past, before the resurgence of piracy. When piracy basically didn't exist.
Pirate can be changed into Privacy - still a P, so not such a change.
How would changing the name to the "Privacy Party" be relevant? If it's not the exact opposite of what the party stands for, it's at least highly tangential. The Pirate Party stands for sharing information, not privacy.