The American people are nowhere near mature enough to be trusted with foolish ways to lose money! I, for one, demand that this motion be defeated by moralizingelites with the power to regulate our vices! Such measures alwayswork as planned!
The only major differences between then and now is income taxes[...]But there is nothign magical or fictional about what came out of it, it is just the expresion of existing laws applied[...]You didn't even get what I was saying right. And I think it is more understandable and in a modern language/style that should be easier for you to understand properly.
But the fact is, most of the people involved in the revolution and all the stuff leading up to it were business owners pissed because their business was being effected. Of course they didn't separate businesses from the people back then, but it is no different then today.
It is entirely different for that very reason. Our relatively recent definition of corporatism (after the Santa Clara decision) allows the individuals at work to create entities that bear individual rights without requiring them to assume individual responsibilities. There's a reason the founding fathers spoke against allowing moneyed interests to control the government: because they viewed the ideal society as one where every individual had the freedom to conduct their business as they saw fit. Their system provided a means for businesses to be represented in government: by their owners. The change in legal perspective that I'm discussing, while constitutional, is an effect of exactly what they warned against, and exactly what you eagerly support: manipulation of an elected government by financiers.
And by the way:
And to be frank, the role of government is the county,state or whatever else it is presiding over. It isn't to suit the people[...]you can push the suggestion of the government working for the people but it just isn't so.
That is the essence of fascism, not republicanism. Your assertion is contradicted by the very preamble of the Constitution. It is also contradicted repeatedly by the writings of the Constitution's architects, such as Thomas Jefferson, as well as those of Hamilton and Madison in the Federalist Papers. I don't know why these aren't more widely read. Frankly, somebody's fed you a line of stuff, and I would suggest a prompt emetic. The writings of the country's founders might be a goodstart.
This part at the end of your post is problematic, because it suggests that we have no common ground from which to commence arguing:
The US isn't a democracy.
Only in the sense that it is not a system where every public law is voted on by every member of the population with the franchise. Of course, this system has never existed outside of small entities, most of which still limit the franchise (at least to adults, and often to property-holders.)
The U.S. certainly is a democracy, in that supreme political power is conferred upon a group of freely-elected officials. This system is called a democratic republic, and the U.S. was founded as a democratic republic specifically to prevent moneyed interests, whether individual or corporate, from dominating the government at the expense of individual voters. The Santa Clara case is a great example of how corporate influence on the government has affected the interpretation of the Constitution, but your post offers nothing to suggest that this is a desirable state of affairs in a political system based around the concept of natural individual rights.
Hmm... I don't remember the part about man. I just remember the no taxation shit.
Then I would suggest that your knowledge of the foundations of American government is incomplete, since this information is readily available.
I can understand arguing the constitutionality of something.
Apparently not, since I'm not arguing the constitutionality of corporate personhood. I'm arguing that a certain court decision, and its subsequent interpretations, have created a legal concept that damages private citizens' ability to benefit from the freedoms that the Constitution attempts to enshrine. Oh, and:
You don't seriously think an indevidual imported tea to be taxed by the government and cause the boston tea party do you? no, it was companies.
The people who engaged in the Boston Tea Party weren't owners of the tea. It was an act of vandalism against a British company, motivated by the high prices of tea that resulted from Crown taxation on shipping to the Colonies. It certainly was no demonstration in favor of corporations' rights, and the fact that such an interpretation makes sense to so many people is a sign that history education is seriously deteriorating throughout the country - conveniently enough for the people who run the country, now that the courts have decided that corporations are people.
Well if they are your 'friends' then there is a good reason they have pictures of you, and you would think they would respect your wishes...
Well, yes, that's the point. I would hope that a friend would, upon polite request, remove the ability for any unknown person to see their friend's image through a simple name search.
if we're talking about Facebook here, its extremely easy for photo tagging to benefit friends but not the FBI, your future employer and/or stalkers, etc.
Well, that's completely incorrect, since we've been discussing a case in this thread where a woman lost her employment qualifications due to such an incident and an overzealous employer.
There are tons of privacy settings and if you took the time to work with them instead of bitching that the Facebook account you created is giving away your personal information then maybe you wouldnt have this problem
This is the second post from you today that has me wondering if you actually read what you're responding to. The issue is what other people do with their photo tagging on their social networking account. I don't have a Facebook account, or a MySpace account for that matter. The only issue is whether other people should enter people's names and photos into a search engine without their consent. So, you be quiet, since you obviously can't even be bothered to follow the conversation.
You need to listen to her some more. I promise, it won't make you a wingnut but you will see that side of things.
I listen to her plenty, and I understand why people call her a Marxist. I also understand why people call Bush a Nazi, but that doesn't make either of those groups correct.
She also double speaks. So make sure you hear what she is saying to multiple audiences.
Absolutely. I'm no fan of the hyper-triangulating Clintons, and will not vote if Hillary receives the Dem nomination. But she's not a Marxist, insofar as her political agenda differs greatly from, you know, Marx or his followers.
Why would you want to tax someone without letting them have representation.
A corporation is not a "someone." You and I are each a "someone." Corporations are financial entities established to consolidate and control capital for a specific purpose, pooling responsibility and profitability. At least, they were, until successive dubious interpretations of Santa Clara County v. South Pacific Railroad Company established the legal fiction that a corporation is a person in some important respects.
Isn't that one of the rallying cries of the revolutionary war? No taxation without representation?
Yes, referring to the "natural rights of man." Thomas Jefferson, for example, was certainly no corporatist.
When you tax a company, person or whatever, it should be able to receive representation of some sort. and if this means funding a politician who favors their position, I don't see the difference.
Sorry, but the only method of influence over government provided for by the Constitution is the electoral process. And legal entities are not granted the franchise. That right is reserved by "the people," an entity whose bounds have been increased by the 15th and 19th Amendments.
Other wise, stop taxing them.
Why, because they'll stop using the public and natural resources of the country? The owners and employees of corporations already have the vote. Suggesting that money should equal political power is to deny the role of rights-based democracy in the United States government. There's already a term for a government run by a small, moneyed ruling class, and it ain't "democracy," no matter what the news might want you to believe.
I do not understand the appeal of this simpering asstard to voters with otherwise-enlightened sensibilities.
Simple: many people have decided that he can't be as bad as Bush (generally ignoring his voting record) solely because he lacks any obvious mental defects, and at least has some personal knowledge of why torture's a stupid method of intelligence gathering.
When you lower the bar enough, anyone can reach it.
McCain won't win the Republican primary. He's too soft on the vital topics of torture and deporting Mexicans to rally the ever-important base, so I'm sorry to say that I don't think we'll ever have the joy of seeing Ballmer throwing a chair at Wan Gang.
Michael Laine [sold] securities while not registered as a securities salesperson[...]offering and selling unregistered securities[...]misstatements of material fact or omitted to state material facts necessary[...]engaged in acts and practices that operated as a fraud or deceit.
Well, sir, there's nothing on earth
like a Genuine,
Bona fide,
Electrified,
Six-car,
Spacelifting
Monorail!
I didn't realize it was petty to moderate Slashdot.
Nope, I do it all the time myself. I just don't have such an inflated view of the value of my individual moderations that I would feel the need to post anonymously so that I could mod a particular thread. There are more than a few in need of moderation on any given day. And in the other direction, I never feel the need to post anonymously in a thread that I've already modded (or indeed at all), since I realize that there is just about zero reason to take an anoynymous poster's vague claims of expertise seriously.
I hoped you would be able to connect the dots, accepting my word as a professional who actually knows what he's talking about, rather than lumping me in with a "vile fuckwit" or some other "asinine" or "knowingly incorrect" tool through a sweeping generalization that so conveniently circumvents critical thought.
Possibly, if you'd taken the time in your multiple posts to explain what it is that you actually do instead of appeal to some unspecified experiential authority. Somebody so conscientious about modding as yourself must surely notice the practice on/. of attempting to substantiate opinion with inflated claims of professional expertise, a technique more common among ACs, since other readers are incapable of looking at an ACs profile or post history to call bullshit. Now, tell me, how does this:
My associates and I make out livings photographing and videotaping people in public places, labeling the images with their respective names and the location the image was acquired in, uploading portions onto the internet, and selling the ultimate result by the thousands on DVD internationally
suggest this:
newspaper, magazine, book, news broadcast or telecast, or other news medium or publication as part of any bona fide news report or presentation having a current and legitimate public interest
exactly? Could you provide more details, or shall I just take your anonymous word as an expert as opposed to yet another anonymous bullshitter? If not, then feel free to help yourself to the last word, since there's obviously nothing to discuss in that case.
The girls you refer to are college-age women who go to hot vacation spots on Spring Break with the intention to get wasted and flash people. Joe Francis and his crew just photograph it.
What a great approach: Start right off the bat by showing your ignorance of the relevant charges that have been repeatedly brought against his production company by generalizing the behavior of the majority of GGW participants to the entire set.
So just shut up and stop trying to "defend" people who don't even want your defense.
Stop? I'd not started. My point is that without legitimately acquiring a release from the participants, the videographer leaves himself open to suits and/or criminal charges (which have thus far been resolved in different ways by different courts). I could really give a shit about the motivations of GGW participants, and am certainly not trying to defend them. Nice reading comprehension. Now, how about you "shut the fuck up."
Really? I thought it had to do with the fact that you've yet to disclose the actual nature of this "work," and the fact that people generally choose anonymity when they don't want to be associated with the things they posit, knowing them to be asinine or incorrect. Most people wouldn't care on a news discussion site, of course, but I suppose that anyone who gives a crap about their mod points is operating on that particular level of pettiness. Good night, anonymous coward. (Irony? Indeed.)
I can't imagine voting for her either, but she's certainly no socialist outside of the realm of wingnut rhetoric.
Re:Perhaps giant remote-deployable pontoons?
on
Pimping Out a New House
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
Hey, come on, mods. It's only trolling if I don't actually believe it. I would seriously invest in waterproofing if I intended to automate a house in a flood zone to protect my investment, and my use of the term "fancy toys" is not intended as derogatory. I enjoy my own fancy toys.
Perhaps giant remote-deployable pontoons?
on
Pimping Out a New House
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
And definitely a watertight room for all the fancy toys you plan to buy.
Slashdot Mirror
Now THAT's a bad bet. The odds of getting a well-reasoned mod are something like 9:4, while the payout is only...erm...
Remember jesus went unto the tomb and then rose after three days to eat THE BRAINS OF THE LIVING ARRRRGH
Why not? His day job involves the world's most profitable brothel - seems like a smart bit of career choice.
Now, why exactly is this relevant to, you know, online gambling, which generally involves a minimum of hot man-on-man action?
The American people are nowhere near mature enough to be trusted with foolish ways to lose money! I, for one, demand that this motion be defeated by moralizing elites with the power to regulate our vices! Such measures always work as planned!
No, I think he'd rather make your parents paranoid, just like these villainous fuckers tried years ago with a different medium.
Nobody ever went broke by banking on stupid parents.
Yes, I'm sure that's it. Take care.
It is entirely different for that very reason. Our relatively recent definition of corporatism (after the Santa Clara decision) allows the individuals at work to create entities that bear individual rights without requiring them to assume individual responsibilities. There's a reason the founding fathers spoke against allowing moneyed interests to control the government: because they viewed the ideal society as one where every individual had the freedom to conduct their business as they saw fit. Their system provided a means for businesses to be represented in government: by their owners. The change in legal perspective that I'm discussing, while constitutional, is an effect of exactly what they warned against, and exactly what you eagerly support: manipulation of an elected government by financiers.
And by the way:
That is the essence of fascism, not republicanism. Your assertion is contradicted by the very preamble of the Constitution. It is also contradicted repeatedly by the writings of the Constitution's architects, such as Thomas Jefferson, as well as those of Hamilton and Madison in the Federalist Papers. I don't know why these aren't more widely read. Frankly, somebody's fed you a line of stuff, and I would suggest a prompt emetic. The writings of the country's founders might be a good start.
Only in the sense that it is not a system where every public law is voted on by every member of the population with the franchise. Of course, this system has never existed outside of small entities, most of which still limit the franchise (at least to adults, and often to property-holders.)
The U.S. certainly is a democracy, in that supreme political power is conferred upon a group of freely-elected officials. This system is called a democratic republic, and the U.S. was founded as a democratic republic specifically to prevent moneyed interests, whether individual or corporate, from dominating the government at the expense of individual voters. The Santa Clara case is a great example of how corporate influence on the government has affected the interpretation of the Constitution, but your post offers nothing to suggest that this is a desirable state of affairs in a political system based around the concept of natural individual rights.
Then I would suggest that your knowledge of the foundations of American government is incomplete, since this information is readily available.
Apparently not, since I'm not arguing the constitutionality of corporate personhood. I'm arguing that a certain court decision, and its subsequent interpretations, have created a legal concept that damages private citizens' ability to benefit from the freedoms that the Constitution attempts to enshrine. Oh, and:
The people who engaged in the Boston Tea Party weren't owners of the tea. It was an act of vandalism against a British company, motivated by the high prices of tea that resulted from Crown taxation on shipping to the Colonies. It certainly was no demonstration in favor of corporations' rights, and the fact that such an interpretation makes sense to so many people is a sign that history education is seriously deteriorating throughout the country - conveniently enough for the people who run the country, now that the courts have decided that corporations are people.
Not really. It refers to making anonymous statements in the media, not being judicious with the amount of times one appears in public databases.
Then you're a good friend in that regard.
Well, yes, that's the point. I would hope that a friend would, upon polite request, remove the ability for any unknown person to see their friend's image through a simple name search.
No. The meat of the issue is whether that photo should easily be accessible through a name search.
Well, that's completely incorrect, since we've been discussing a case in this thread where a woman lost her employment qualifications due to such an incident and an overzealous employer.
This is the second post from you today that has me wondering if you actually read what you're responding to. The issue is what other people do with their photo tagging on their social networking account. I don't have a Facebook account, or a MySpace account for that matter. The only issue is whether other people should enter people's names and photos into a search engine without their consent. So, you be quiet, since you obviously can't even be bothered to follow the conversation.
I listen to her plenty, and I understand why people call her a Marxist. I also understand why people call Bush a Nazi, but that doesn't make either of those groups correct.
Absolutely. I'm no fan of the hyper-triangulating Clintons, and will not vote if Hillary receives the Dem nomination. But she's not a Marxist, insofar as her political agenda differs greatly from, you know, Marx or his followers.
A corporation is not a "someone." You and I are each a "someone." Corporations are financial entities established to consolidate and control capital for a specific purpose, pooling responsibility and profitability. At least, they were, until successive dubious interpretations of Santa Clara County v. South Pacific Railroad Company established the legal fiction that a corporation is a person in some important respects.
Yes, referring to the "natural rights of man." Thomas Jefferson, for example, was certainly no corporatist.
Sorry, but the only method of influence over government provided for by the Constitution is the electoral process. And legal entities are not granted the franchise. That right is reserved by "the people," an entity whose bounds have been increased by the 15th and 19th Amendments.
Why, because they'll stop using the public and natural resources of the country? The owners and employees of corporations already have the vote. Suggesting that money should equal political power is to deny the role of rights-based democracy in the United States government. There's already a term for a government run by a small, moneyed ruling class, and it ain't "democracy," no matter what the news might want you to believe.
Simple: many people have decided that he can't be as bad as Bush (generally ignoring his voting record) solely because he lacks any obvious mental defects, and at least has some personal knowledge of why torture's a stupid method of intelligence gathering.
When you lower the bar enough, anyone can reach it.
McCain won't win the Republican primary. He's too soft on the vital topics of torture and deporting Mexicans to rally the ever-important base, so I'm sorry to say that I don't think we'll ever have the joy of seeing Ballmer throwing a chair at Wan Gang.
Unless, of course, somebody gets busy in GIMP.
Monorail!
Well, sir, there's nothing on earth like a Genuine, Bona fide, Electrified, Six-car, Spacelifting Monorail!
Nope, I do it all the time myself. I just don't have such an inflated view of the value of my individual moderations that I would feel the need to post anonymously so that I could mod a particular thread. There are more than a few in need of moderation on any given day. And in the other direction, I never feel the need to post anonymously in a thread that I've already modded (or indeed at all), since I realize that there is just about zero reason to take an anoynymous poster's vague claims of expertise seriously.
Possibly, if you'd taken the time in your multiple posts to explain what it is that you actually do instead of appeal to some unspecified experiential authority. Somebody so conscientious about modding as yourself must surely notice the practice on /. of attempting to substantiate opinion with inflated claims of professional expertise, a technique more common among ACs, since other readers are incapable of looking at an ACs profile or post history to call bullshit. Now, tell me, how does this:
suggest this:
exactly? Could you provide more details, or shall I just take your anonymous word as an expert as opposed to yet another anonymous bullshitter? If not, then feel free to help yourself to the last word, since there's obviously nothing to discuss in that case.
What a great approach: Start right off the bat by showing your ignorance of the relevant charges that have been repeatedly brought against his production company by generalizing the behavior of the majority of GGW participants to the entire set.
Stop? I'd not started. My point is that without legitimately acquiring a release from the participants, the videographer leaves himself open to suits and/or criminal charges (which have thus far been resolved in different ways by different courts). I could really give a shit about the motivations of GGW participants, and am certainly not trying to defend them. Nice reading comprehension. Now, how about you "shut the fuck up."
When will this be available as a layer in Google Earth?
Really? I thought it had to do with the fact that you've yet to disclose the actual nature of this "work," and the fact that people generally choose anonymity when they don't want to be associated with the things they posit, knowing them to be asinine or incorrect. Most people wouldn't care on a news discussion site, of course, but I suppose that anyone who gives a crap about their mod points is operating on that particular level of pettiness. Good night, anonymous coward. (Irony? Indeed.)
I can't imagine voting for her either, but she's certainly no socialist outside of the realm of wingnut rhetoric.
Hey, come on, mods. It's only trolling if I don't actually believe it. I would seriously invest in waterproofing if I intended to automate a house in a flood zone to protect my investment, and my use of the term "fancy toys" is not intended as derogatory. I enjoy my own fancy toys.
And definitely a watertight room for all the fancy toys you plan to buy.