Umm, didn't the government long since force the populace to buy a product in order to operate a motor vehicle (which in more than a few parts of this country is a vital part of day-to-day life) by mandating car insurance?
No, this is a myth I keep seeing repeated here. The federal government has never mandated automotive insurance.
Some states have pseudo-mandatory provisions, but there are two HUGE differences here just at first glance.
First as just stated these are state laws. If you dont understand the difference between a state or federal power please research 'federalism.' This is a huge difference.
Second these provisions cover only damages that one may inflict on others - it is liability insurance required so that if you do damage to an innocent third party in the course of operating your vehicle, they can be compensated. Consistent with this rationale, no state actually requires even liability insurance be purchased - it is acceptable also to simply post a bond in the required amount.
If the health mandate were comparable to the auto-insurance laws, then we would be looking at STATE laws mandating a policy that would pay medical expenses for OTHER people, only in the event that you somehow infect or injure them, or in the alternative that you post a bond in the amount required. And that just isnt even close.
And no, we are not under obligation to give our sources to random hackers who did not purchase our specialized $15k piece of equipment (with the firmware) first.
Actually, based on what you have said, you ARE under that obligation. If you simply shipped the code with the binaries/devices you would not be, but since you didnt do that, you must supply source to "any third party."
I did study this bit for a while.
Either you didnt, or you are exceptionally bad at reading. The license isnt hard to understand.
Greenwald has directly rebutted it already. In addition, for anyone that is confused about why Wireds behaviour here is so objectionable, he has posted a follow-up that is quite clear and informative.
There is really no excuse in today's military for anyone to not follow orders.
There are a couple of good excuses, actually, both of which are squarely on point to his case. One is the oath of office, the other is the Nuremberg principles.
A contract which mandates criminal behaviour is unenforceable, and the oath of office each and every soldier takes trumps any and all obligations to the CoC as well. Under the Nuremberg protocols Pvt. Manning did not have the option to simply look away and follow orders, either. In a fair trial these defenses would be quite powerful. Which is why he is very unlikely to ever receive one.
You mean like they did with the telecos? Or the cable companies? Or any other kind of infrastructure? I challenge anyone here that can name a deregulation of a public utility or infrastructure that has lead to increased competition in the market in question over time.
Except that none of that actually happened. It's amazing how quickly transparent lies become accepted wisdom.
I challenge you to name 'a deregulation of a public utility or infrastructure" that's actually happened.
You wont find one. Here's the game. They cook up a slightly different regime of regulation, call it 'deregulation' (even though it's anything but) and their buddies make a killing off the resulting disaster. Then they announce that deregulation clearly doesnt work, and move back a little toward the older regime. At no point is there actual deregulation of a market, just some transparent propaganda to that effect.
California and power is an excellent example. The market was no less regulated after 'deregulation' just regulated in an even more extraordinarily stupid way.
Claiming deregulation doesnt work because something that only very vaguely even resembled deregulation was tried and failed is completely illogical.
What does American imperialism have to do with DADT?
It's simple. There are two ways of looking at this, and BOTH are valid, though I consider one more weighty, certainly both are valid.
The policy is straight up tax-funded federal government discrimination for sexual orientation, which is obviously wrong on that level and the repeal should be celebrated.
The US Military is engaged, not in defending the US, but in long wars of occupation as a result of invasions based on lies. These wars cost millions of innocents their lives and/or liberty, and have involved torture and lawlessness on a grand scale. Viewpoint 1 being true and valid, nonetheless, anyone truly concerned for human rights should be trying to get the breeders out of the us military, not trying to keep the gays in!
Truly amazing. After having just pointed out that they dont operate in a free market and how that causes the problem, you then do a 180 in your concluding paragraph and say:
Welcome to the "free" market,
Your cognitive-dissonance circuits must be working lots of overtime.
If you like living in a third world nation maybe. We would have no interstate highway, the Internet would never have been invented, and many places might still not even have electricity. Truly a wonderland, like Somalia.
Interesting you should mention Somalia. Of course it's not the best place to live right now, but it was an even worse shit-hole when they had a supposedly functional government. In fact, after the people there got rid of that government the economy and standard of living went up significantly - surpassing neighboring countries that it had always lagged behind. Of course those same neighbors couldnt have that, so then came a period with lots of outsiders bombing the crap out of things and the situation went downhill again, but Somalis are still today doing much better than they were before they liberated themselves, even with the self-appointed "international community" bombing the crap out of them now and again.
So if the US had actually followed the Constitution? All evidence indicates we would be better off for that fact, in so many ways. All except for those of us that live off government monopolies, of course. Those people might actually have to work for a living like the rest of us.
The entire text of the Constitution, as well as the extensive extemporaneous evidence, SCREAMS that this was never intended to be interpreted in anything like this fashion. It's a sophomoric rationale that was invented with a nod and a wink to gut the Constitution then, and it's been used to that affect for decades. You may be right in that the federal judiciary at this point is far too corrupt to ever enforce the law, but that is a different issue entirely.
Having lived under both systems I dont think you are too far off, as far as you go, although there are salient disadvantages to to your B system you dont mention, they dont change the equation so radically as to make what you write garbage.
However like everyone else you insist on ignoring the possibility of a system C, a free-market in health care. This is a "non-starter" politically because no wealthy PACs would get a free ride on it, of course, so I understand why they dont want to talk about it, but for us little people it would be a far better option than your false dillema of current-US-fascist system vs. current-EU-socialist system.
Also, car insurance is not mandatory in the US. Lots of us dont have it.
Judges resolve disputes. So in this case, for instance, we have the Obamacare bill, which has passed both houses and been signed by the president and thus "become law" however it clearly conflicts with another, superior law (the US Constitution.) It's the Judges job to sort out the dispute, determine whether or not there is a real conflict, and if so determine what, if anything, in the unconstitutional law can be separated and salvaged and what has to simply be rejected for violation of the higher law.
Historically our judges have been extremely loathe to actually do their job here, and strongly defer to the legislature instead for the most part. This goes back to the 1830s when the Supreme Court made a politically unpopular decision and the decision was simply ignored. The President at the time disregarded his oath entirely and made no attempt to enforce it, joking that the Justices who made the decision should enforce it themselves. That set a pattern that has mostly held ever since with the courts being mostly unwilling to stand up for our laws when it is politically unpopular to do so. So it's refreshing to see a sitting Judge today buck that long and shameful pattern, if that is actually what is happening.
Not sure though, would have to investigate the Judges record, and see if he's consistent. If he is only willing to stand up for the law when it's against the Democrats, then he's just another partisan hack in a long line of them.
Archaeologists study Geology intensely, and any team of size will include a Geologist.
Also Southern Methodist is a great place for archæology, home to Lewis Binford among others. The Methodist church isnt fundamentalist and doesnt have a problem with science.
The guy was found guilty because... he pleaded guilty. What's the court supposed to do, argue the defense's case for them when they've already said they did it?
I would expect perhaps some governors and/or attorneys-general and/or the fbi etc., were there any that were for real, would start investigating just how someone is so pressured that they plead guilty to bogus charges?
There was nothing criminal or even shocking other than the candid opinions of lower level personal in the state department about other countries and said countries leaders.
Look again. No one has even scratched the surface of these things in terms of sheer volume, people snatch out a couple bits that support their thesis and run with it apparently. One thing that has jumped out at me right off - Hillary Clinton violating quite a few laws. Will be interesting to see if she gets charged or not.
Kidnapping the wrong person on foreign solid?...wait. Kidnapping on foreign solid?...wait. Kidnapping? This is somehow all OK because it's the "good guys" who are breaching human rights and conducting illegal activities in other sovereign nations? Someone please help me understand how this justifiable.
Of course it isnt justifiable in reality. But to many modern americans, brain-damaged from prolonged exposure to fantasies like "24", the more over-the-top and "tough" the better, and even considering the question of whether or not your actions are justifiable is a sign of fatal softness.
You also have to worry less because Cocoa has better foundation classes than you get with the standard template library..
And bringing us right back to the topic... GnuStep.
The purpose of this project is to create a free and open version of the Cocoa (formerly known as NeXTSTEP/OpenStep) APIs and tools for as many platforms as possible.
It's great stuff, and I have been complaining for years that infinitely less-worthy work was getting the attention instead, so I was very happy to see this.
Slashdot Mirror
No, this is a myth I keep seeing repeated here. The federal government has never mandated automotive insurance.
Some states have pseudo-mandatory provisions, but there are two HUGE differences here just at first glance.
First as just stated these are state laws. If you dont understand the difference between a state or federal power please research 'federalism.' This is a huge difference.
Second these provisions cover only damages that one may inflict on others - it is liability insurance required so that if you do damage to an innocent third party in the course of operating your vehicle, they can be compensated. Consistent with this rationale, no state actually requires even liability insurance be purchased - it is acceptable also to simply post a bond in the required amount.
If the health mandate were comparable to the auto-insurance laws, then we would be looking at STATE laws mandating a policy that would pay medical expenses for OTHER people, only in the event that you somehow infect or injure them, or in the alternative that you post a bond in the amount required. And that just isnt even close.
Actually, based on what you have said, you ARE under that obligation. If you simply shipped the code with the binaries/devices you would not be, but since you didnt do that, you must supply source to "any third party."
Either you didnt, or you are exceptionally bad at reading. The license isnt hard to understand.
Robust? Hardly.
Greenwald has directly rebutted it already. In addition, for anyone that is confused about why Wireds behaviour here is so objectionable, he has posted a follow-up that is quite clear and informative.
Thank you, a very insightful and educational post. Wish I had mod points today.
There are a couple of good excuses, actually, both of which are squarely on point to his case. One is the oath of office, the other is the Nuremberg principles.
A contract which mandates criminal behaviour is unenforceable, and the oath of office each and every soldier takes trumps any and all obligations to the CoC as well. Under the Nuremberg protocols Pvt. Manning did not have the option to simply look away and follow orders, either. In a fair trial these defenses would be quite powerful. Which is why he is very unlikely to ever receive one.
Except that none of that actually happened. It's amazing how quickly transparent lies become accepted wisdom.
I challenge you to name 'a deregulation of a public utility or infrastructure" that's actually happened.
You wont find one. Here's the game. They cook up a slightly different regime of regulation, call it 'deregulation' (even though it's anything but) and their buddies make a killing off the resulting disaster. Then they announce that deregulation clearly doesnt work, and move back a little toward the older regime. At no point is there actual deregulation of a market, just some transparent propaganda to that effect.
California and power is an excellent example. The market was no less regulated after 'deregulation' just regulated in an even more extraordinarily stupid way.
Claiming deregulation doesnt work because something that only very vaguely even resembled deregulation was tried and failed is completely illogical.
No, you do not understand him.
It's simple. There are two ways of looking at this, and BOTH are valid, though I consider one more weighty, certainly both are valid.
Just because Kirk stated something doesnt make it true.
Truly amazing. After having just pointed out that they dont operate in a free market and how that causes the problem, you then do a 180 in your concluding paragraph and say:
Your cognitive-dissonance circuits must be working lots of overtime.
Interesting you should mention Somalia. Of course it's not the best place to live right now, but it was an even worse shit-hole when they had a supposedly functional government. In fact, after the people there got rid of that government the economy and standard of living went up significantly - surpassing neighboring countries that it had always lagged behind. Of course those same neighbors couldnt have that, so then came a period with lots of outsiders bombing the crap out of things and the situation went downhill again, but Somalis are still today doing much better than they were before they liberated themselves, even with the self-appointed "international community" bombing the crap out of them now and again.
So if the US had actually followed the Constitution? All evidence indicates we would be better off for that fact, in so many ways. All except for those of us that live off government monopolies, of course. Those people might actually have to work for a living like the rest of us.
The entire text of the Constitution, as well as the extensive extemporaneous evidence, SCREAMS that this was never intended to be interpreted in anything like this fashion. It's a sophomoric rationale that was invented with a nod and a wink to gut the Constitution then, and it's been used to that affect for decades. You may be right in that the federal judiciary at this point is far too corrupt to ever enforce the law, but that is a different issue entirely.
Having lived under both systems I dont think you are too far off, as far as you go, although there are salient disadvantages to to your B system you dont mention, they dont change the equation so radically as to make what you write garbage.
However like everyone else you insist on ignoring the possibility of a system C, a free-market in health care. This is a "non-starter" politically because no wealthy PACs would get a free ride on it, of course, so I understand why they dont want to talk about it, but for us little people it would be a far better option than your false dillema of current-US-fascist system vs. current-EU-socialist system.
Also, car insurance is not mandatory in the US. Lots of us dont have it.
A good answer to that question can be found here.
Judges resolve disputes. So in this case, for instance, we have the Obamacare bill, which has passed both houses and been signed by the president and thus "become law" however it clearly conflicts with another, superior law (the US Constitution.) It's the Judges job to sort out the dispute, determine whether or not there is a real conflict, and if so determine what, if anything, in the unconstitutional law can be separated and salvaged and what has to simply be rejected for violation of the higher law.
Historically our judges have been extremely loathe to actually do their job here, and strongly defer to the legislature instead for the most part. This goes back to the 1830s when the Supreme Court made a politically unpopular decision and the decision was simply ignored. The President at the time disregarded his oath entirely and made no attempt to enforce it, joking that the Justices who made the decision should enforce it themselves. That set a pattern that has mostly held ever since with the courts being mostly unwilling to stand up for our laws when it is politically unpopular to do so. So it's refreshing to see a sitting Judge today buck that long and shameful pattern, if that is actually what is happening.
Not sure though, would have to investigate the Judges record, and see if he's consistent. If he is only willing to stand up for the law when it's against the Democrats, then he's just another partisan hack in a long line of them.
The subject is system. System is singular, "system is" correct.
Having doubleclick blacklisted in noscript will probably defeat this absurd procedure.
Of course it probably also protects my privacy better than this procedure would anyhow.
Archaeologists study Geology intensely, and any team of size will include a Geologist.
Also Southern Methodist is a great place for archæology, home to Lewis Binford among others. The Methodist church isnt fundamentalist and doesnt have a problem with science.
So you were offbase on every point.
Everyone knows Firefox is useless without plugins. "Objection" handles LSOs.
Then why do the older OS/2 terminals still seem to be more reliable?
Considering the market is not free, you may be waiting a long time on that.
I would expect perhaps some governors and/or attorneys-general and/or the fbi etc., were there any that were for real, would start investigating just how someone is so pressured that they plead guilty to bogus charges?
Look again. No one has even scratched the surface of these things in terms of sheer volume, people snatch out a couple bits that support their thesis and run with it apparently. One thing that has jumped out at me right off - Hillary Clinton violating quite a few laws. Will be interesting to see if she gets charged or not.
Of course it isnt justifiable in reality. But to many modern americans, brain-damaged from prolonged exposure to fantasies like "24", the more over-the-top and "tough" the better, and even considering the question of whether or not your actions are justifiable is a sign of fatal softness.
And bringing us right back to the topic... GnuStep.
It's great stuff, and I have been complaining for years that infinitely less-worthy work was getting the attention instead, so I was very happy to see this.
That's exactly what I said, and it's true.