I'm contending that he knew how one is at the root of the other, and how transmission of one enriches the world, while protection of the other can help stimulate it.
Jefferson was fucking brilliant. Too bad most people have no idea why.
Thankfully, someone paid attention in history class. I wouldn't so much say diplomats caused WW1, because diplomats always, always work under direct orders of the national government. And yes, the generals certainly get a solid heaping of blame.
But it had nothing to do with supposed cultural or economic differences. And what has stopped it for a record length isn't the two World Wars, but the EU. And that was my point.
No, I'm scolding you for saying that WW1 was the result of cultural and economical differences between Germans and French. Resource differences - yes. Your wife might have clued you in on the entire Alsace and Rhone issues, which had some influence on the WW1. Though I have to admit I have no idea what you meant with your soccer league comment.
As for your parent, the French were happy going on continent-wide rampages. Remember Napoleon? Or Algeria for colonial brutality. As for racism, it is quite present in France, as it is Germany. There are superficial differences, but at the core, Germany and France are much closer than either is with Britain or with Russia.
It wasn't previous conflicts (as is, past battles/wars) that "caused" WWI. It was fundamental differences between regional cultures, economies, resources, etc.
Holy crap. Do you have any idea what you're talking about? WW1 was caused by military planners being absolute idiots and the political leaders spineless wimps. Do you know how close Germany and France were and are culturally?
Jesus Christ, I wouldn't mind American adventurism in the world if the people advocating it would have any idea of the history of the areas they're meddling in.
Just watch for Vitamin D toxicity. In general, overdosing on natural stuff like carrots and liver oil is quite possible, and with at least weird, and sometimes toxic side effects. As for effectiveness, I doubt that. Whole foods and Vitamin D won't solve things like Manic Depression.
Ah yes. It is terrible to be a white man in the US. Let me give you a clue: you have no idea what it is like to be a woman, a black person, or a Muslim. Stop comparing your plight to theirs, it makes you look ridiculous. Furthermore, while a gay person might have Barney Franks to go to, you, as a white male, can go to 81% of the Senate and 76% of the House to find someone white. An only slightly smaller fraction of that would be white and male. So no, you're not being prosecuted or mistreated. You're still part of the group in power.
Of course we are all familiar with the idea that if a member of a protected class is murdered and the State does not convict anyone the accused can be tried again (and again and again until convicted) under federal civil rights laws.
Remember OJ? Clearly, not. Civil rights apply to everyone. Thankfully.
Let me repeat that for you: as a white male, you are the power group. Not the persecuted group. The persecution you feel is the same as that of Christians in the US: completely imaginary, and only based on the fact that your power has decreased from its zenith during the last few hundred years.
I mean, I can see the RTFA argument when the site is in English, the link is in the summary on the front page and the source is reputable. I can even see the RTFA argument made to people whose English isn't all that great, considering that this is an American site. But RTFA to a swedish site? Maybe Swahili next time? Sheesh.
Scary guy. Not so much evil as purely misguided in his efforts. He thinks that all those 700000 odd patents on backlog represent American jobs that aren't being created, because the patent doesn't exist. At that point, all I can think about is the high-tech patent wars, and how the only people they keep employed are lawyers. I guess, technically he is right: more patents mean more jobs. But only for patent lawyers and patent appraisers. Unfortunately, he didn't seem to get the distinction, and was incredibly enthusiastic about his drive to get more patents approved.
One of the reasons it is "automatically" considered to be bad is that much of it is illegal. Like it or not, our government does not have Constitutional authority to carry out much of the regulation it already does, much less what it wants to do.
Ah, yes. The famous legal mind Jane Q. Public has solved the constitutional problem of what the constitution exactly means. All constitutional professors can retire, constitutional lawyers can find a second job as lobbyists, and the Supreme Court can play basketball for the rest of their terms.
Anytime someone says something like this, I hear "activist judge" and lump them into the category of people who think that they are the center and the reason of the world.
What's your alternative? Direct Democracy? Watch California for how much of a clusterfuck that can be. Some form of oligarchy? Read about the french revolution for the clusterfuck that that was. Monarchy? Benevolent dictator? Really, I'm all ears. I know how much Democracy sucks, but as Churchill (?) said - it's the worst political system there is, except for all the others. I'd love to hear a good alternative.
No shit it's hard to do experiments on the sun. That's why there are laboratories that replicate specific parts of the sun's physics, satellites that collect data and things like the Ice cube experiment. Even astronomy isn't done completely in the dark with no experiments.
May...suggests.... could be... Those are called weasel words for a reason. In this case, they are weasel words because they cover the complete absence of any evidence for the conclusion. The weasel words do not cover that fact. Furthermore, the use of the weasel words is even further weakened by the inclusion of the obligatory contrary opinion.
The article might not be bad in comparison to other articles, but quality is not relative. It's a standard of its own.
The headline, and the first few paragraphs make it sound like this is a solved problem: theories were proposed, experiments were done, results were verified and a conclusion was concluded.
Instead, what actually happened is completely murky. There is no mention of which satellites were used to gather data, or which organization collected it, or how data was used to support the conclusions. It seems that some people ran some computer simulations where they could replicate the current cycle by changing some parameters of the solar conveyor belt. But that's a guess, because the article says nothing. And to really make the article useless, there's the obligatory counter-point from a random scientist who says something completely different, again without any explanation of why.
Journalists ought to learn that science reporting is not like Entertainment or even Politics reporting. It doesn't really matter who said what, but only why they say and how they came to the conclusions. I'm not holding my breath though.
The Wikipedia article talks about disarming German Jews. Since Jews were not considered true Germans (kinda like a true Scotsman), it makes no sense to argue that Hitler disarmed Germans. Finally, point 3) seems to explicitly argue that certain German civilians were re-armed: those who could be trusted to uphold the party ideals. Kinda like gun-laws here, no? Break the law, can't carry guns anymore. The only difference is what laws need to be broken.
The only thing that really scares me about this thread is the attitude "Hitler can't happen here as long as we have guns". It misses the point on so many levels that it is a reason to get the hell out before it's too late.
A tripod page is the best you can do? Laughable. Not to mention that Hitler isn't talking about Germans, but about all others. Which is not what the topic is. What he did do was disarm undesirables - the same crap that's going on in the US.
You have no idea how powerless an armed citizenry is in ensuring liberty.
But he went and fiddled with something that didn't need to be fiddled with.
It's interesting that he seems to be doing that to all his old movies, and the effect is always the same: it's bad, boring and pointless. What's worse, I can tell when something's been digitally altered when I haven't even seen the original. Case in point: THX 1138. Good movie, but there were a couple of scenes where the background was distracting from what was going on in the foreground, or the entire scene was completely pointless and irrelevant to the overall story. And every time, it involved graphics and special effects that just weren't possible in 1971.
Lucas seems to have been a director who did better when he was subjected to technical limits to his imagination. Because right now, everytime he touches a movie, the special effects are seem to be the reason for the movie, rather than the other way around.
That's why Hitler and every other "successful" dictator made it a top priority to first disarm the citizens.
Bullshit. Citation or it didn't happen. For your info: Hitler REARMED Germans after the western world thought it wise to limit what kind of weapons Germans could produce.
Thought experiment: what if the Government removes its monopoly on force, either in the name of deregulation or because the government wants to outsource that part of its work?
On second thought: the first amendment infringement seems to be a second order effect. In other words, it's not that NSLs in and of themselves infringe on the first amendment. But what they are designed to do is to make it impossible to even have a public discussion about NSLs.
With wiretaps, you can go to historical cases where the court records have been unsealed and discuss their appropriateness in public. I believe this holds true even for grand juries. In other words, it is possible to have a public discussion about whether a specific wiretap or grand jury development was appropriate at some later point in time. With NSLs, that's impossible, if you believe what they say. Public discourse about NSLs is basically impossible at that point, unless you disobey the instructions in them and the laws associated with them. And that's a first amendment issue.
I'm glad you brought up those examples, because they have explicit provisions for when it's ok to talk about both. Generally, it's either the proper court officials, government officials that deal with that matter, or people necessary to conduct the wiretapping. There's no blanket "you can't talk to anybody about it ever" provision in any of the two examples you provided.
Now, if you want to argue that the first amendment only comes into play for political or public speech: sure, the 1st amendment doesn't apply to NSLs. But I find that to be a dangerous narrowing of its scope. Besides, you can tell anyone you want that you're in a grand jury, and you can even talk about dealing with wiretaps - you just can't talk about specific wiretapping requests (admittedly, I'm a bit less sure about that one). But NSLs - you can't even say that you got one to anyone. And to me, that's free speech territory.
Did you miss the rest of my post? The point of that example was to illustrate how similar corporations and governments already are, and that there is nothing inherently better about corporations. Whether i think that corps with armed guards is a good thing is irrelevant.
How far do you want to take that obstruction of justice argument? It wasn't that he just wasn't allowed to tell his customer that the customer is under surveillance. He was prevented from mentioning to anybody that this NSL even existed. Anybody. His CFO, his CIO, his family... anybody. It wouldn't surprise me if he wasn't allowed to talk to the FBI about having received a NSL from them.
While I do agree that the NSLs are a flagrant breach of the 4th and 5th amendments, they also do breach the 1st amendment by preventing any sort of reasonable communication around this matter that would not impact the investigation.
And why don't they? Because the government hasn't abrogated its monopoly on power. Again, there's nothing structurally inherent in a corporation that prevents the sending of armed guards to kick in your door. It's merely a convention of society codified into law by the legislative branch of the government.
And if we really want to nitpick, corporations have armed guards. They just can't send them into your property. But they can handcuff you on their property.
Yes, we do. Because there is nothing inherent in a corporation that is different from a government, except there is a chance that the corporation has to operate under rules that are written and enforced by a government. However, without those rules, a corporation is nothing but a hegemony. If we're lucky, a meritocratic hegemony, but a hegemony nonetheless.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm contending that he knew how one is at the root of the other, and how transmission of one enriches the world, while protection of the other can help stimulate it.
Jefferson was fucking brilliant. Too bad most people have no idea why.
Thankfully, someone paid attention in history class. I wouldn't so much say diplomats caused WW1, because diplomats always, always work under direct orders of the national government. And yes, the generals certainly get a solid heaping of blame.
But it had nothing to do with supposed cultural or economic differences. And what has stopped it for a record length isn't the two World Wars, but the EU. And that was my point.
No, I'm scolding you for saying that WW1 was the result of cultural and economical differences between Germans and French. Resource differences - yes. Your wife might have clued you in on the entire Alsace and Rhone issues, which had some influence on the WW1. Though I have to admit I have no idea what you meant with your soccer league comment.
As for your parent, the French were happy going on continent-wide rampages. Remember Napoleon? Or Algeria for colonial brutality. As for racism, it is quite present in France, as it is Germany. There are superficial differences, but at the core, Germany and France are much closer than either is with Britain or with Russia.
It wasn't previous conflicts (as is, past battles/wars) that "caused" WWI. It was fundamental differences between regional cultures, economies, resources, etc.
Holy crap. Do you have any idea what you're talking about? WW1 was caused by military planners being absolute idiots and the political leaders spineless wimps. Do you know how close Germany and France were and are culturally?
Jesus Christ, I wouldn't mind American adventurism in the world if the people advocating it would have any idea of the history of the areas they're meddling in.
Just watch for Vitamin D toxicity. In general, overdosing on natural stuff like carrots and liver oil is quite possible, and with at least weird, and sometimes toxic side effects. As for effectiveness, I doubt that. Whole foods and Vitamin D won't solve things like Manic Depression.
Not bad. Even mods don't catch dupes.... Congrats on double karma. ;)
Ah yes. It is terrible to be a white man in the US. Let me give you a clue: you have no idea what it is like to be a woman, a black person, or a Muslim. Stop comparing your plight to theirs, it makes you look ridiculous. Furthermore, while a gay person might have Barney Franks to go to, you, as a white male, can go to 81% of the Senate and 76% of the House to find someone white. An only slightly smaller fraction of that would be white and male. So no, you're not being prosecuted or mistreated. You're still part of the group in power.
Of course we are all familiar with the idea that if a member of a protected class is murdered and the State does not convict anyone the accused can be tried again (and again and again until convicted) under federal civil rights laws.
Remember OJ? Clearly, not. Civil rights apply to everyone. Thankfully.
Let me repeat that for you: as a white male, you are the power group. Not the persecuted group. The persecution you feel is the same as that of Christians in the US: completely imaginary, and only based on the fact that your power has decreased from its zenith during the last few hundred years.
I mean, I can see the RTFA argument when the site is in English, the link is in the summary on the front page and the source is reputable. I can even see the RTFA argument made to people whose English isn't all that great, considering that this is an American site. But RTFA to a swedish site? Maybe Swahili next time? Sheesh.
Scary guy. Not so much evil as purely misguided in his efforts. He thinks that all those 700000 odd patents on backlog represent American jobs that aren't being created, because the patent doesn't exist. At that point, all I can think about is the high-tech patent wars, and how the only people they keep employed are lawyers. I guess, technically he is right: more patents mean more jobs. But only for patent lawyers and patent appraisers. Unfortunately, he didn't seem to get the distinction, and was incredibly enthusiastic about his drive to get more patents approved.
One of the reasons it is "automatically" considered to be bad is that much of it is illegal. Like it or not, our government does not have Constitutional authority to carry out much of the regulation it already does, much less what it wants to do.
Ah, yes. The famous legal mind Jane Q. Public has solved the constitutional problem of what the constitution exactly means. All constitutional professors can retire, constitutional lawyers can find a second job as lobbyists, and the Supreme Court can play basketball for the rest of their terms.
Anytime someone says something like this, I hear "activist judge" and lump them into the category of people who think that they are the center and the reason of the world.
What's your alternative? Direct Democracy? Watch California for how much of a clusterfuck that can be. Some form of oligarchy? Read about the french revolution for the clusterfuck that that was. Monarchy? Benevolent dictator? Really, I'm all ears. I know how much Democracy sucks, but as Churchill (?) said - it's the worst political system there is, except for all the others. I'd love to hear a good alternative.
No shit it's hard to do experiments on the sun. That's why there are laboratories that replicate specific parts of the sun's physics, satellites that collect data and things like the Ice cube experiment. Even astronomy isn't done completely in the dark with no experiments.
May...suggests.... could be... Those are called weasel words for a reason. In this case, they are weasel words because they cover the complete absence of any evidence for the conclusion. The weasel words do not cover that fact. Furthermore, the use of the weasel words is even further weakened by the inclusion of the obligatory contrary opinion.
The article might not be bad in comparison to other articles, but quality is not relative. It's a standard of its own.
The headline, and the first few paragraphs make it sound like this is a solved problem: theories were proposed, experiments were done, results were verified and a conclusion was concluded.
Instead, what actually happened is completely murky. There is no mention of which satellites were used to gather data, or which organization collected it, or how data was used to support the conclusions. It seems that some people ran some computer simulations where they could replicate the current cycle by changing some parameters of the solar conveyor belt. But that's a guess, because the article says nothing. And to really make the article useless, there's the obligatory counter-point from a random scientist who says something completely different, again without any explanation of why.
Journalists ought to learn that science reporting is not like Entertainment or even Politics reporting. It doesn't really matter who said what, but only why they say and how they came to the conclusions. I'm not holding my breath though.
The Wikipedia article talks about disarming German Jews. Since Jews were not considered true Germans (kinda like a true Scotsman), it makes no sense to argue that Hitler disarmed Germans. Finally, point 3) seems to explicitly argue that certain German civilians were re-armed: those who could be trusted to uphold the party ideals. Kinda like gun-laws here, no? Break the law, can't carry guns anymore. The only difference is what laws need to be broken.
The only thing that really scares me about this thread is the attitude "Hitler can't happen here as long as we have guns". It misses the point on so many levels that it is a reason to get the hell out before it's too late.
A tripod page is the best you can do? Laughable. Not to mention that Hitler isn't talking about Germans, but about all others. Which is not what the topic is. What he did do was disarm undesirables - the same crap that's going on in the US.
You have no idea how powerless an armed citizenry is in ensuring liberty.
But he went and fiddled with something that didn't need to be fiddled with.
It's interesting that he seems to be doing that to all his old movies, and the effect is always the same: it's bad, boring and pointless. What's worse, I can tell when something's been digitally altered when I haven't even seen the original. Case in point: THX 1138. Good movie, but there were a couple of scenes where the background was distracting from what was going on in the foreground, or the entire scene was completely pointless and irrelevant to the overall story. And every time, it involved graphics and special effects that just weren't possible in 1971.
Lucas seems to have been a director who did better when he was subjected to technical limits to his imagination. Because right now, everytime he touches a movie, the special effects are seem to be the reason for the movie, rather than the other way around.
That's why Hitler and every other "successful" dictator made it a top priority to first disarm the citizens.
Bullshit. Citation or it didn't happen. For your info: Hitler REARMED Germans after the western world thought it wise to limit what kind of weapons Germans could produce.
Thought experiment: what if the Government removes its monopoly on force, either in the name of deregulation or because the government wants to outsource that part of its work?
On second thought: the first amendment infringement seems to be a second order effect. In other words, it's not that NSLs in and of themselves infringe on the first amendment. But what they are designed to do is to make it impossible to even have a public discussion about NSLs.
With wiretaps, you can go to historical cases where the court records have been unsealed and discuss their appropriateness in public. I believe this holds true even for grand juries. In other words, it is possible to have a public discussion about whether a specific wiretap or grand jury development was appropriate at some later point in time. With NSLs, that's impossible, if you believe what they say. Public discourse about NSLs is basically impossible at that point, unless you disobey the instructions in them and the laws associated with them. And that's a first amendment issue.
I'm glad you brought up those examples, because they have explicit provisions for when it's ok to talk about both. Generally, it's either the proper court officials, government officials that deal with that matter, or people necessary to conduct the wiretapping. There's no blanket "you can't talk to anybody about it ever" provision in any of the two examples you provided.
Now, if you want to argue that the first amendment only comes into play for political or public speech: sure, the 1st amendment doesn't apply to NSLs. But I find that to be a dangerous narrowing of its scope. Besides, you can tell anyone you want that you're in a grand jury, and you can even talk about dealing with wiretaps - you just can't talk about specific wiretapping requests (admittedly, I'm a bit less sure about that one). But NSLs - you can't even say that you got one to anyone. And to me, that's free speech territory.
Did you miss the rest of my post? The point of that example was to illustrate how similar corporations and governments already are, and that there is nothing inherently better about corporations. Whether i think that corps with armed guards is a good thing is irrelevant.
How far do you want to take that obstruction of justice argument? It wasn't that he just wasn't allowed to tell his customer that the customer is under surveillance. He was prevented from mentioning to anybody that this NSL even existed. Anybody. His CFO, his CIO, his family... anybody. It wouldn't surprise me if he wasn't allowed to talk to the FBI about having received a NSL from them.
While I do agree that the NSLs are a flagrant breach of the 4th and 5th amendments, they also do breach the 1st amendment by preventing any sort of reasonable communication around this matter that would not impact the investigation.
And why don't they? Because the government hasn't abrogated its monopoly on power. Again, there's nothing structurally inherent in a corporation that prevents the sending of armed guards to kick in your door. It's merely a convention of society codified into law by the legislative branch of the government.
And if we really want to nitpick, corporations have armed guards. They just can't send them into your property. But they can handcuff you on their property.
Yes, we do. Because there is nothing inherent in a corporation that is different from a government, except there is a chance that the corporation has to operate under rules that are written and enforced by a government. However, without those rules, a corporation is nothing but a hegemony. If we're lucky, a meritocratic hegemony, but a hegemony nonetheless.
Gah, you're correct. I was thinking matter/anti-matter reactions.