Taxes going to the government is one thing. This forced payment is going to private corporations. Very important difference there.
Yes, we really need some very serious redefining of the Commerce Clause after the ass raping it's taken through the years.
We've been around all along. The problem is when the majority in both parties are wanting bigger government, our voice tends to be drowned out. Hence the growing popularity of the tea party movement.
Wow, you really understand fuck all about how the US government is structured. For starters, all "money bills" have to start in the House not the Senate. And you're just now finding out that this is the purpose of the judicial branch?
Or you could have just taken that for the bitter and cynical remark of disgust that it was.
But since you brought it up, honesty in government is never going to happen. Most federal politicians are lawyers and I have yet to meet a lawyer that it's even occurred to to be honest unless it gained them something.
Or actually take their security seriously. 100% transparency would be the pinnacle of foolishness unless they could be absolutely certain every other nation and entity they dealt with did exactly the same.
Or you could, you know, get a job and pay for it yourself like some of us did. I'm not saying there isn't something screwy with tuition prices that could use fixing but crying that it can't be done without being "indebted to the government for most of your life" or having family money does not pass the bullshit test. And that's completely discounting things like earning scholarships or spending a couple years in the military.
But, hey... I know the whole having to earn what you want idea is going out of fashion lately. Please carry on with the complaining.
There's no reason it should boil down to nihilism unless you particularly want to believe in nihilism. It's quite possible to believe someone has the right to their beliefs and still wish them ill for those beliefs and any actions taken based thereon.
It's like time and relativity. Near the speed of light, my personal time would be vastly different from a stationary person's. It's both possible and acceptable to acknowledge that their time is valid to them but not remotely care about it when deciding when dinner time is for myself.
Moral relativism is fine so long as you remember two things:
Everyone is under no obligation to respect any beliefs not their own.
You are part of the group Everyone, not an outside observer.
Example: Westboro Baptist Church has every right in the world to believe their wacky shit. I have every right in the world to believe the world would be a better place if they were to all be raped, tortured, and then fed into a wood chipper. Neither of us has to give a happy damn about seeing things from the other's point of view.
Bah. Hypocrisy is everywhere.... Who are they to decide that it is wrong for an animal to suffer?... Unless there is some sort of god above, I don't think there is any innate law of the universe that determines what is wrong and what is right, it's up to us to decide.
As long as it is necessary for the safety and well-being of any group I am a member of, scaling from family all the way up to nation, I'm fine with whatever will best solve the problem. Best meaning quickest, most thoroughly, and with least harm to my group. And yes, if instilling terror into the opposition will break their will to fight, I'm fine with however it's best accomplished.
Yes, the long list of exactly that working over the history of the world is precisely why I'm fine with it. Not attacking civilians is an extremely modern notion and it's made wars drag on far longer than they should have had to. The earlier mentions of the nuclear bombing of Japan are an excellent example. Estimated casualties for having to force them to surrender with conventional warfare were over a million. Bomb casualties were under half of that. So what if they were civilians? Their deaths saved hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides, ours most importantly. I wouldn't lose a moment of sleep ordering the exact same thing again in Truman's position.
It's absolutely a moral and justified act. It isn't a government's job to protect the people of the world, it's their job to protect their people. If killing foreign civilians leads to a lesser loss of life on their own side and/or a quicker ending to the war, political leaders would be foolish in the extreme to not order them killed. Frankly, I want a leader who's willing to be a completely amoral fuckwad towards any outside entities in defending my nation and way of life. I want Vlad Tepes externally and Abraham Lincoln internally.
It got them mentioned on the front page of/. As many a weeping webmaster can attest, that is a lot of traffic to their site. Yay advertising.
If even a few quality games come out of their offering, it grows the Linux gaming market that they can then take advantage of to sell more of their own games.
It gets them some non-trivial good will from the Linux community. Always a good thing to have if you want money from it.
It gets games made with their engine that otherwise wouldn't be. That makes it easier to point to quality examples of its use if they later decide to sell licenses.
It doesn't cost them anything except a few man-hours reading and replying to applications.
There really is no down-side to them. Take more economics classes.
But for all the flak AT&T gets, in my area is pretty darn good.
I'm happy for you. Myself, I get 0-2 bars anywhere within two miles of my home. Our arguments are anecdotal though, look at a coverage map for AT&T and you'll see there are huge swaths they do not cover at all.
b) See the half dozen other times I've noted that I'm not talking about Acrobat.
a) Why, exactly? What business is it of anyone's what format I want to read something in? Suppose I want to read it from a console. Most pdf to text converters have a 50% success rate at best.
c) I generally stick with plaintext or html personally but I'm speaking as a consumer of information when I say getting anything as a PDF automatically pisses me off. I want the information not your immutable formatting.
d) Guess again. Foxit and a lot of others got hit in the last few rounds, same as Adobe.
Slashdot Mirror
Taxes going to the government is one thing. This forced payment is going to private corporations. Very important difference there.
Yes, we really need some very serious redefining of the Commerce Clause after the ass raping it's taken through the years.
We've been around all along. The problem is when the majority in both parties are wanting bigger government, our voice tends to be drowned out. Hence the growing popularity of the tea party movement.
Wow, you really understand fuck all about how the US government is structured. For starters, all "money bills" have to start in the House not the Senate. And you're just now finding out that this is the purpose of the judicial branch?
Or you could have just taken that for the bitter and cynical remark of disgust that it was.
But since you brought it up, honesty in government is never going to happen. Most federal politicians are lawyers and I have yet to meet a lawyer that it's even occurred to to be honest unless it gained them something.
Or actually take their security seriously. 100% transparency would be the pinnacle of foolishness unless they could be absolutely certain every other nation and entity they dealt with did exactly the same.
Since when has honestly had any place in government?
Rank has nothing to do with security clearance is why. Privates with a signal MOS deal with classified material every single day.
Or you could, you know, get a job and pay for it yourself like some of us did. I'm not saying there isn't something screwy with tuition prices that could use fixing but crying that it can't be done without being "indebted to the government for most of your life" or having family money does not pass the bullshit test. And that's completely discounting things like earning scholarships or spending a couple years in the military.
But, hey... I know the whole having to earn what you want idea is going out of fashion lately. Please carry on with the complaining.
Er... Truth and Reason are possibly the two least agreed upon topics in the history of the world. Try again.
There's no reason it should boil down to nihilism unless you particularly want to believe in nihilism. It's quite possible to believe someone has the right to their beliefs and still wish them ill for those beliefs and any actions taken based thereon.
It's like time and relativity. Near the speed of light, my personal time would be vastly different from a stationary person's. It's both possible and acceptable to acknowledge that their time is valid to them but not remotely care about it when deciding when dinner time is for myself.
Just a quick reminder that you're reading /. comments.
Nobody should be subject to a verbal assault by a judge or other public employee.
Conversely, I find it hard to believe that a lawyer has ever received more than 1/2^64 of what they had coming to them in the ass-chewing department.
Moral relativism is fine so long as you remember two things:
Example: Westboro Baptist Church has every right in the world to believe their wacky shit. I have every right in the world to believe the world would be a better place if they were to all be raped, tortured, and then fed into a wood chipper. Neither of us has to give a happy damn about seeing things from the other's point of view.
Bah. Hypocrisy is everywhere. ... Who are they to decide that it is wrong for an animal to suffer? ... Unless there is some sort of god above, I don't think there is any innate law of the universe that determines what is wrong and what is right, it's up to us to decide.
Outstanding example.
I just can't stand f**ing hypocrites.
Dunno why not, they're just as good in the sack as everyone else.
So true. Can we start doing this with politicians we don't reelect, please?
As long as it is necessary for the safety and well-being of any group I am a member of, scaling from family all the way up to nation, I'm fine with whatever will best solve the problem. Best meaning quickest, most thoroughly, and with least harm to my group. And yes, if instilling terror into the opposition will break their will to fight, I'm fine with however it's best accomplished.
Yes, the long list of exactly that working over the history of the world is precisely why I'm fine with it. Not attacking civilians is an extremely modern notion and it's made wars drag on far longer than they should have had to. The earlier mentions of the nuclear bombing of Japan are an excellent example. Estimated casualties for having to force them to surrender with conventional warfare were over a million. Bomb casualties were under half of that. So what if they were civilians? Their deaths saved hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides, ours most importantly. I wouldn't lose a moment of sleep ordering the exact same thing again in Truman's position.
It's absolutely a moral and justified act. It isn't a government's job to protect the people of the world, it's their job to protect their people. If killing foreign civilians leads to a lesser loss of life on their own side and/or a quicker ending to the war, political leaders would be foolish in the extreme to not order them killed. Frankly, I want a leader who's willing to be a completely amoral fuckwad towards any outside entities in defending my nation and way of life. I want Vlad Tepes externally and Abraham Lincoln internally.
Yeah, undoubtedly the worst definition of fascism I've ever seen.
There really is no down-side to them. Take more economics classes.
Nice. I'm not sure I could manage offtopic, troll, and flamebait all at once. Go you!
Of course. Someone has to keep local computer repair shops in business. Call it a cluelessness tax if you like.
But for all the flak AT&T gets, in my area is pretty darn good.
I'm happy for you. Myself, I get 0-2 bars anywhere within two miles of my home. Our arguments are anecdotal though, look at a coverage map for AT&T and you'll see there are huge swaths they do not cover at all.
1440x900 19" monitor @ 3 feet. Can't read it. Now if I stick my nose within a foot of the screen I can but I'm thinking this is just a YMMV situation.
*headdesk* You didn't read any of the half dozen times I mentioned I wasn't talking about and don't use Acrobat Reader?
b) See the half dozen other times I've noted that I'm not talking about Acrobat.
a) Why, exactly? What business is it of anyone's what format I want to read something in? Suppose I want to read it from a console. Most pdf to text converters have a 50% success rate at best.
c) I generally stick with plaintext or html personally but I'm speaking as a consumer of information when I say getting anything as a PDF automatically pisses me off. I want the information not your immutable formatting.
d) Guess again. Foxit and a lot of others got hit in the last few rounds, same as Adobe.