Considering that communism in practice is restricted to Leninism and below, I'd say it's irrelevant if Marx wanted democracy or not.
Not so.
The fact that the only systems calling themselves "communist" that managed to gain power were reprehensible should not be an excuse for a blanket dismissal of anything with "communism" in its name.
That would be Leninism et al. There are other versions of Communism, you know. Hell, even Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat" was intended to be democratic.
your average monarchist totalitarian couldn't care less, as long as he lives as king and you don't piss him off.
Such monarchs usually have very short life spans. The more forward thinking ones make sure that you do not have the means nor the opportunity to "piss them off", even if you wanted to.
1. When a non-corrupt political party comes into existence with a chance of winning.
In order to get a chance of winning, a party needs traction. In order to get traction, it needs a non-trivial amount of votes. If you refuse to vote for a party that "does not have a chance of winning", you deny them the opportunity of getting that chance.
2. When those who commit serious crimes in official capacities are charged, prosecuted, and jailed for them. 3. When those who fund the politicians are charged, prosecuted, and jailed for their serious crimes.
For #2 and #3 to become reality, you need to take care of #1 first.
I have hopes, but I have to get back to improving porcine aerodynamics first.
How about spending your time helping the non-corrupt get more influence? The next generation will appreciate it.
It will never stop until police "officers" are personally criminally responsible for their criminal actions, and are actively prosecuted for them. Since that will never happen, the abuse will never stop.
"The judge disagreed. In a 25-page ruling, he wrote that the Hernandez's refusal to wear the badge even without the tracking chip undermined her claims that the district was violating her religious freedom. "Plaintiff's objection to wearing the Smart ID badge without a chip is clearly a secular choice, rather than a religious concern," Garcia wrote."
The practice of any religion can be run by an organization that turns out into a cult. The attacks that we see on "Scientology" should not really be directed at the subject of Scientology nor used to label the subject as a cult.
Except that Scientology was intentionally created as a cult masquerading as a religion for commercial purposes.
The summary, as well as the article, contains the sentence "Israel is to attempt, again, to pass a bill...". Another way to phrase it is: "The bill did *not* pass last time, and may end up not passing again.". Sounds less sinister, doesn't it? And non-news....
Raising awareness helps ensure it will fail to pass again. This is what makes it news (or, at least, worth publishing).
RMS suppressed C++ and Flash support for the same reason Adobe and Microsoft are fading them away: Because they were and are ill conceived crap meant to wall garden programmers with property libraries and complexities that rely on a dedicated and nontransferable skill set.
Writing in C++ is only done out of ignorance or reliance on property libraries. No person in his right mind chooses it. Hell, even Microsoft is trying to put it aside in favor of C#.
President Obama on Wednesday released a national strategy designed to balance the sharing of information with those who need it to keep their asses covered, while protecting the same data from those who should rightfully own it.
And what's with this view that being able to shoot someone who wrongs you is better than the tiny risk of being robbed? Seriously? People with that view are exactly who I don't want having weapons anywhere near me.
Firstly: It's not about being able to shoot the robber. It's about the robber being aware that there's a good chance they might get shot.
Secondly: Take your first statement. Replace "wrongs" with "assaults". Replace "robbed" with "raped". Replace "you" with "my daughter" (or, alternatively, with "my mother"). Say it out loud. Reflect.
Who cares? It's not your right to decide what she needed her rights for. If I want to own 1000 guns, it's my right, and you have no right to second guess whether I get the right based on what you think I need.
Rights come with responsibilities. If you want to own a shitload firearms it's fine by me, as long as you are held responsible for any use or misuse of each and every one; no excuses, no exceptions. If any person gets unauthorized access to any of your weapons, even if their sole intention was to gaze lovingly at them, you should be charged with conspiracy to commit murder and punished to the full extent of the law (which, I understand, in the US is a legally mandated anal rape).
Ten to one the mother is the answer to this drama.
Then the way we prevent this from ever happening again: ban mothers. You can't shoot your mother in her sleep if you don't have a mother. And ban schools. You can't shoot up a school full of kids if there is no school for them to be conveniently corralled into.
Quite a drama queen are you? As the saying goes, try to engage brain before putting mouth (or, in this case, fingers) in gear.
Bans are rarely the right solution to anything. Try education instead. 1) The mother should have figured out that her son was disturbed and sought help for him. This is what parents do. 2) The mother should have taken care to ensure that the weapons were not accessible by her unstable son. Up to and including giving them up, if necessary. 3) A mental health professional should have been available to provide the family with advice. And the mother should have sought and heeded it.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't need much "goodwill" when you are the biggest player in the game and have a captive user base.
Considering that communism in practice is restricted to Leninism and below, I'd say it's irrelevant if Marx wanted democracy or not.
Not so.
The fact that the only systems calling themselves "communist" that managed to gain power were reprehensible should not be an excuse for a blanket dismissal of anything with "communism" in its name.
communism tends to be aggressive towards you.
That would be Leninism et al. There are other versions of Communism, you know. Hell, even Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat" was intended to be democratic.
your average monarchist totalitarian couldn't care less, as long as he lives as king and you don't piss him off.
Such monarchs usually have very short life spans.
The more forward thinking ones make sure that you do not have the means nor the opportunity to "piss them off", even if you wanted to.
If performance is your priority then don't use A/V.
How about: "If security is your priority then keep your computer powered off."
Obviously there are various trade-offs between these two extremes.
How much longer are we going to take this fucking bullshit?
Forever, basically.
Because nobody wants to take a personal responsibility for doing something about it.
1. When a non-corrupt political party comes into existence with a chance of winning.
In order to get a chance of winning, a party needs traction. In order to get traction, it needs a non-trivial amount of votes. If you refuse to vote for a party that "does not have a chance of winning", you deny them the opportunity of getting that chance.
2. When those who commit serious crimes in official capacities are charged, prosecuted, and jailed for them.
3. When those who fund the politicians are charged, prosecuted, and jailed for their serious crimes.
For #2 and #3 to become reality, you need to take care of #1 first.
I have hopes, but I have to get back to improving porcine aerodynamics first.
How about spending your time helping the non-corrupt get more influence? The next generation will appreciate it.
Mod. Parent. Up!
Look ma, I've smoked over THIRTY POUNDS of weed and I can still calculated [sic] how much I've smoked without a calculator.
Headline: Heavy marijuana use impairs linguistic abilities.
It will never stop until police "officers" are personally criminally responsible for their criminal actions, and are actively prosecuted for them.
Since that will never happen, the abuse will never stop.
There are some [young people] who act on principal
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
And why would that be less valid?
Showcasing the latest advancements in silicon, no doubt.
Copyright was meant to feed the auhors, not their heirs.
Copyright was meant to feed the publishers.
By those criteria, just using recent news stories:
Catholicism is a cult.
Church of England is a cult.
Islam is a cult.
A cult is a small, unpopular religion. A religion is a large, popular cult.
By those criteria, just using recent news stories:
Catholicism is a cult.
Church of England is a cult.
Islam is a cult.
How about we just call them false religions?
Calling them "false religions" implies that there is such a thing as a "true" religion.
The practice of any religion can be run by an organization that turns out into a cult. The attacks that we see on "Scientology" should not really be directed at the subject of Scientology nor used to label the subject as a cult.
Except that Scientology was intentionally created as a cult masquerading as a religion for commercial purposes.
The summary, as well as the article, contains the sentence "Israel is to attempt, again, to pass a bill ...".
Another way to phrase it is: "The bill did *not* pass last time, and may end up not passing again.".
Sounds less sinister, doesn't it? And non-news....
Raising awareness helps ensure it will fail to pass again.
This is what makes it news (or, at least, worth publishing).
You neglected to read the rest of his statement: "A man much admired by Fatah and its leadership"
RMS suppressed C++ and Flash support for the same reason Adobe and Microsoft are fading them away: Because they were and are ill conceived crap meant to wall garden programmers with property libraries and complexities that rely on a dedicated and nontransferable skill set.
Writing in C++ is only done out of ignorance or reliance on property libraries. No person in his right mind chooses it. Hell, even Microsoft is trying to put it aside in favor of C#.
Could have fooled me.
Which MP(s) are behind this initiative?
Saying that IQ is a myth is hyperbole.
Saying that IQ is a myth is hyperbole is exaggeration.
Yeah, right. This coming from the alleged constitutional law professor who signed the PATRIOT act extension.
Not to mention personally signing off on people who were put on a "kill list". It is so very surreal, what goes on nowdays.
Isn't it what Nobel Peace Prize winners do?
President Obama on Wednesday released a national strategy designed to balance the sharing of information with those who need it to keep their asses covered, while protecting the same data from those who should rightfully own it.
And what's with this view that being able to shoot someone who wrongs you is better than the tiny risk of being robbed? Seriously? People with that view are exactly who I don't want having weapons anywhere near me.
Firstly:
It's not about being able to shoot the robber.
It's about the robber being aware that there's a good chance they might get shot.
Secondly:
Take your first statement.
Replace "wrongs" with "assaults".
Replace "robbed" with "raped".
Replace "you" with "my daughter" (or, alternatively, with "my mother").
Say it out loud.
Reflect.
What did she need that arsenal for?
Who cares? It's not your right to decide what she needed her rights for. If I want to own 1000 guns, it's my right, and you have no right to second guess whether I get the right based on what you think I need.
Rights come with responsibilities.
If you want to own a shitload firearms it's fine by me, as long as you are held responsible for any use or misuse of each and every one; no excuses, no exceptions. If any person gets unauthorized access to any of your weapons, even if their sole intention was to gaze lovingly at them, you should be charged with conspiracy to commit murder and punished to the full extent of the law (which, I understand, in the US is a legally mandated anal rape).
Ten to one the mother is the answer to this drama.
Then the way we prevent this from ever happening again: ban mothers. You can't shoot your mother in her sleep if you don't have a mother. And ban schools. You can't shoot up a school full of kids if there is no school for them to be conveniently corralled into.
Quite a drama queen are you? As the saying goes, try to engage brain before putting mouth (or, in this case, fingers) in gear.
Bans are rarely the right solution to anything. Try education instead.
1) The mother should have figured out that her son was disturbed and sought help for him. This is what parents do.
2) The mother should have taken care to ensure that the weapons were not accessible by her unstable son. Up to and including giving them up, if necessary.
3) A mental health professional should have been available to provide the family with advice. And the mother should have sought and heeded it.