An intelligent person would glean the truth from what I said, but I'll elaborate a little more. I realize that pretty much everyone here is retarded. Also, I refer below to all objects of rights violations as victims, even if they're not victims in the moral sense of involving causation.
We're given a situation in which some tyrant is violating people's rights. The tyrant might be a rebel or it might be an invader. That people's rights are going to be violated is necessitated by the tyrant.
Either the tyrant will choose the victims to further whatever his goals are, or the government will choose the victims to thwart the tyrant and end victimization. The only reason rights are being violated in the first place is that the tyrant prefers it.
Now, the tyrant retains all his rights, as everyone always does. Rights, by definition (secular or religious), are inalienable. Preferably, the government will violate the tyrant's right to life and thereby end his threat to others' rights. That people's rights will be violated is already given because of the tyrant; the government chooses the tyrant himself as the preferred victim of the rights violations necessitated by the tyrant; and hopefully, the rights violations will end once the tyrant has been denied his rights. Of course, the tyrant prefers that the results of his initiation of rights violations will not include his own rights ever being violated, so the government might have to choose victims other than the tyrant as intermediate victims enabling the government to violate the tyrant's rights.
Sometimes for the government to choose innocents as victims facilitates accessing the tyrant to violate the tyrant's rights. Either the government chooses innocents as victims in those cases, or the tyrant will choose other innocents as victims. Regardless, innocents will be victimized. If the government chooses the innocents, it chooses them because choosing them minimizes rights violations long-term. When the tyrant chooses them, it maximizes rights violations long-term. Again, innocents will be victimized. Either the tyrant will victimize many for evil, or the government will victimize few for good. Regardless, someone is choosing victims, so whining about whether or not one likes it that some people are choosing victims or whining about the standard one applies in choosing those victims is IRRELEVANT, so shut up, fag.
I hope I made this simple enough for you to understand some of the reasons why the Constitution grants Congress absolute power to defend the United States and why all governments everywhere have that absolute authority by the nature of government. The Constitution explicitly states it, but the Founders didn't have to state it. The nature of all governments is such that they have absolute authority to defend citizens from rebels and invaders.
According to you, because imprisoning murderers violates their inalienable rights, the government isn't allowed to do it, but you couch your specious arguments in concerns about due process of law. In fact, in times of rebellion and invasion, due process is obviously defined differently, and the Constitution itself states as much when it reminds the People that Congress may suspend the privilege of writs of habeas corpus.
The government is limited when protecting some citizens from other citizens *when that threat is not in the form of a rebellion* because regular criminal threats don't disturb peace significantly enough for systematically violating rights to be expected to preserve or expand freedom. Rebellion and invasion, however, threaten the very sovereignty of the people, so all rights may be violated to eliminate the real threat to those rights and preserve the *possibility* of rights.
But theoretical arguments are completely unnecessary. As my quotes from the Constitution prove, the government may do anything to defend the United States in times of rebellion and invasion. Feel free to whine about the arguments in favor of our Constitution, but the Constitution will remain, impervious to your faggotry.
And as always, it's the more tyrannical party who deserves blame for rights violations that apparently proceed from the more libertarian government. If the government of the United States--the more libertarian government in any conflict--knowingly imprisons innocents for the purposes of defending the nation from the more tyrannical government, then that more tyrannical government is responsible for making those rights violations necessary. The government of the United States is not responsible for it.
As for Congressional powers versus Executive powers, the Executive already had legislative authority to do what he did. He has an army of the very best lawyers advising him. Objections to his actions are purely political. But you're digressing.
"The Congress shall have Power To . . . *provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States*; . . . *To define and punish . . . Offences against the Law of Nations*; To declare War . . . and *make Rules concerning Captures* on Land and Water; **********To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers**********, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
To translate that for you girly, retarded Democrats, the government can do literally anything required to protect the United States. Anything, ever, to any threat or innocent or anyone else, foreign or domestic. Shut the hell up, you effeminate, pussy-whipped dorks. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. When the public is threatened, the government is all-powerful in its capacity as protector of the public against rebels and invaders, such as terrorists.
"The Congress shall have Power To . . . provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; . . . To define and punish . . . Offences against the Law of Nations; To declare War . . . and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
What about the Constitution and thousands of years of international conflict is difficult for Democrats to understand? Please learn to read beyond a fifth-grade level--and actually apply your newfound skills--before you type anything else pertaining to political philosophy, law, or our great Constitution.
And to recap for you retards, the government's power to defend the United States is unlimited.
And to recap more for you retards, the Congress can make up whatever rules it pleases to deal with those whom its Executive captures.
And to recap more for you retards, the Congress can define and punish offenses against the Law of Nations, such as terrorism and conspiracy with terrorists, however it pleases.
Never mind. You're retarded. You'll never understand any of this. Neither will you understand the proceeding.
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
I'll translate that for you Democrat girly-boys: "The government may imprison any citizen or foreigner if imprisoning him--even if he's *known to be completely innocent of everything*--preserves public safety during a time of rebellion or invasion, such as right now, when terrorists have invaded and continue to invade." Imagine that you've retired from public service but were privy to classified information that would now be useful to terrorists. If the government fears that the terrorists seek to abduct you and use your knowledge to harm the public, the government may imprison you, though you be completely innocent and even known to be completely innocent. Of course, the government would probably imprison you comfortably, since it would still consider you a friend, but it would be imprisoning you nevertheless, and the public need never know of it. It would imprison those supposed to be unfriendly less comfortably.
Also, we were invaded on 9/11 and before, and the people we're imprisoning are presumed to threaten public safety in conspiracy with the invaders. This is an open and shut case to people who aren't retarded international socialists.
I prefer teenyboppers who don't even pretend to care about politics over a bunch of Slashdot communists who pretend to care but don't actually read anything that will inform their opinions and who vote Democrat.
Google didn't make a damn thing popular. AJAX is only special because JavaScript execution is limited to the browser context for security and because stupid people imagine that some day it will be portable. Writing web applications that mimicked desktop applications--which is the real topic--was already a trend. Even AJAX had been popularized by Scottrade and perhaps others--years before Google did anything with it.
You scum associate AJAX with Google for two reason: 1) the media tell you to because: they're communists; Microsoft is a symbol of capitalism; Google might some day threaten Microsoft's existence with enough media help; and helping Google might destroy Microsoft as a milestone to extinguishing American freedom: and 2) you're a bunch of communists who, independently of the media con job, would do the same things the media do.
The association of AJAX with Google is 100% arbitrary and media-contrived. The purpose of this deceit is to destroy Microsoft. You're a bunch of commies.
You're not discussing user interfaces here. You're discussing their religion. They're communists who religiously hate Microsoft as a symbol of capitalism and reinforce and justify their hate with any tenuous arguments they can find.
"Presumably such support will include helping the plug-in developers that will assist Massachusetts migrate from a MS Office environment to one based upon ODF-compliant office productivity software."
"Presumably such support will include helping the plug-in developers that will assist Massachusetts migrate from a MS Office environment to one based upon ODF-compliant office productivity software."
"Presumably such support will include helping the plug-in developers that will assist Massachusetts migrate from a MS Office environment to one based upon ODF-compliant office productivity software."
He's not talking about Microsoft adding ODF compatibility to Office--Microsoft said as much. He's talking about Microsoft helping to develop his competitors' competing products. I hate Democrats.
Presumably such support will include helping the plug-in developers that will assist Massachusetts migrate from a MS Office environment to one based upon ODF-compliant office productivity software.
How did you derive this standard according to which it's advisable or "moral" for a company to help its own clients defect to competitors? I hate Democrats.
He just didn't click the checkbox to enter plain text, retard.
There's a really good reason for that.
on
Do Kids Still Program?
·
· Score: -1, Flamebait
Democrats have dominated the media and learning institutions for decades, and this whole time, their primary goal has been to prolong students' feelings of helplessness. Stupid, craven people vote Democrat.
As for the original topic of the thread, programming probably isn't very appealing now that the art is advanced. How intrepid would you feel laying bricks or painting a shed?
This functionality is indispensable: dynamic object links, autosaving, mail merging. If I used Word more, I'd have other examples. This is just a flashy toy that I could have written long ago. Ajax is easy. Hooray for the new web-based Wordpad.
Your erotic preferences, skin color, and religion, if they're relevant at all, are only relevant to account for your guilt and self-loathing.
Any citizen of the United States can improve himself until he's a Supreme Court Justice, Secretary of State, National Security Advisor, Senator, Representative, President (though, by historical accident, we lack precedent for that), or anything else. The conservative movement widely regards two black men, Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Williams, as their intellectual premiers.
Relatively few black people realize their potential because people like you discourage them. Rationally, the past is irrelevant to living blacks' present decisions whether to work hard, and those decisions whether to work hard entirely determine blacks' degrees of success. (During your panicked attempt to appear to dispute this, please explain in what respects blacks raised in fabulous wealth and freedom relative to the wealth of people in lands of true oppression throughout the world are disadvantaged relative to penniless immigrants arriving from those lands of true oppression--without reference to your own complicity in suppressing them here by your communist and racist--Democrat--propaganda.)
We're better than others at killing because we're better than they are at everything else. Wars are logistical contests fought by civilians on farms, in shops, and, in modern times, in factories and laboratories. We're better at all those other things because our culture is superior to theirs: we are free.
I say "we" to humor you. In fact, "we" are white, black, Chinese, and anything else in America, Europe, Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, Australia, and maybe some other places. "We" are all people who embrace the superior culture developed by whites in America and Europe.
For the record, I hate almost all of you politically correct, whiny Slashdotters. You're a bunch of emotionalist bitches.
Bull. The only advantage the iPod has ever had is MEDIA BIAS.
The media are almost all Democrats, communists, environmentalists, feminists, pacifists, etc. who hate Microsoft (and Wal*Mart, pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, Halliburton, et al.). Apple opposes Microsoft and comprises a bunch of Democrats, communists, environmentalists, feminists, pacifists, etc. To this day, the communist media promotes Apple, Apple products generally, and iPods particularly almost any time a word appearing in a tech article can be tangentially related to any word appearing in Apple advertising copy.
Without the decades-long communist media quest to defeat Microsoft via Apple, Apple would have died . . . decades ago. Apple is a zombie running on billions of dollars of free publicity from fellow travelers in the media who issue that free publicity purely for POLITICAL purposes.
It's a grotesque spectacle, but there's something hilarious in it: Apple forbids anyone to install its operating system on hardware compatible with Windows to avoid direct competition. Hahaha. The pro-Apple commies tried to use government coercion to destroy Microsoft for much less.
Slashdot Mirror
An intelligent person would glean the truth from what I said, but I'll elaborate a little more. I realize that pretty much everyone here is retarded. Also, I refer below to all objects of rights violations as victims, even if they're not victims in the moral sense of involving causation.
We're given a situation in which some tyrant is violating people's rights. The tyrant might be a rebel or it might be an invader. That people's rights are going to be violated is necessitated by the tyrant.
Either the tyrant will choose the victims to further whatever his goals are, or the government will choose the victims to thwart the tyrant and end victimization. The only reason rights are being violated in the first place is that the tyrant prefers it.
Now, the tyrant retains all his rights, as everyone always does. Rights, by definition (secular or religious), are inalienable. Preferably, the government will violate the tyrant's right to life and thereby end his threat to others' rights. That people's rights will be violated is already given because of the tyrant; the government chooses the tyrant himself as the preferred victim of the rights violations necessitated by the tyrant; and hopefully, the rights violations will end once the tyrant has been denied his rights. Of course, the tyrant prefers that the results of his initiation of rights violations will not include his own rights ever being violated, so the government might have to choose victims other than the tyrant as intermediate victims enabling the government to violate the tyrant's rights.
Sometimes for the government to choose innocents as victims facilitates accessing the tyrant to violate the tyrant's rights. Either the government chooses innocents as victims in those cases, or the tyrant will choose other innocents as victims. Regardless, innocents will be victimized. If the government chooses the innocents, it chooses them because choosing them minimizes rights violations long-term. When the tyrant chooses them, it maximizes rights violations long-term. Again, innocents will be victimized. Either the tyrant will victimize many for evil, or the government will victimize few for good. Regardless, someone is choosing victims, so whining about whether or not one likes it that some people are choosing victims or whining about the standard one applies in choosing those victims is IRRELEVANT, so shut up, fag.
I hope I made this simple enough for you to understand some of the reasons why the Constitution grants Congress absolute power to defend the United States and why all governments everywhere have that absolute authority by the nature of government. The Constitution explicitly states it, but the Founders didn't have to state it. The nature of all governments is such that they have absolute authority to defend citizens from rebels and invaders.
According to you, because imprisoning murderers violates their inalienable rights, the government isn't allowed to do it, but you couch your specious arguments in concerns about due process of law. In fact, in times of rebellion and invasion, due process is obviously defined differently, and the Constitution itself states as much when it reminds the People that Congress may suspend the privilege of writs of habeas corpus.
The government is limited when protecting some citizens from other citizens *when that threat is not in the form of a rebellion* because regular criminal threats don't disturb peace significantly enough for systematically violating rights to be expected to preserve or expand freedom. Rebellion and invasion, however, threaten the very sovereignty of the people, so all rights may be violated to eliminate the real threat to those rights and preserve the *possibility* of rights.
But theoretical arguments are completely unnecessary. As my quotes from the Constitution prove, the government may do anything to defend the United States in times of rebellion and invasion. Feel free to whine about the arguments in favor of our Constitution, but the Constitution will remain, impervious to your faggotry.
And as always, it's the more tyrannical party who deserves blame for rights violations that apparently proceed from the more libertarian government. If the government of the United States--the more libertarian government in any conflict--knowingly imprisons innocents for the purposes of defending the nation from the more tyrannical government, then that more tyrannical government is responsible for making those rights violations necessary. The government of the United States is not responsible for it.
As for Congressional powers versus Executive powers, the Executive already had legislative authority to do what he did. He has an army of the very best lawyers advising him. Objections to his actions are purely political. But you're digressing.
I didn't make the immediate point clear enough for Democrats. I'll go really slowly this time.
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
The people we're imprisoning are invaders.
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
The people we're imprisoning are invaders.
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
The people we're imprisoning are invaders.
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
The people we're imprisoning are invaders.
"The Congress shall have Power To . . . *provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States*; . . . *To define and punish . . . Offences against the Law of Nations*; To declare War . . . and *make Rules concerning Captures* on Land and Water; **********To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers**********, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
To translate that for you girly, retarded Democrats, the government can do literally anything required to protect the United States. Anything, ever, to any threat or innocent or anyone else, foreign or domestic. Shut the hell up, you effeminate, pussy-whipped dorks. The Constitution is not a suicide pact. When the public is threatened, the government is all-powerful in its capacity as protector of the public against rebels and invaders, such as terrorists.
"The Congress shall have Power To . . . provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; . . . To define and punish . . . Offences against the Law of Nations; To declare War . . . and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water; To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof."
What about the Constitution and thousands of years of international conflict is difficult for Democrats to understand? Please learn to read beyond a fifth-grade level--and actually apply your newfound skills--before you type anything else pertaining to political philosophy, law, or our great Constitution.
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experien ce/charters/constitution_transcript.html n ce/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
http://www.archives.gov/national-archives-experie
And to recap for you retards, the government's power to defend the United States is unlimited.
And to recap more for you retards, the Congress can make up whatever rules it pleases to deal with those whom its Executive captures.
And to recap more for you retards, the Congress can define and punish offenses against the Law of Nations, such as terrorism and conspiracy with terrorists, however it pleases.
Never mind. You're retarded. You'll never understand any of this. Neither will you understand the proceeding.
"The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it."
I'll translate that for you Democrat girly-boys: "The government may imprison any citizen or foreigner if imprisoning him--even if he's *known to be completely innocent of everything*--preserves public safety during a time of rebellion or invasion, such as right now, when terrorists have invaded and continue to invade." Imagine that you've retired from public service but were privy to classified information that would now be useful to terrorists. If the government fears that the terrorists seek to abduct you and use your knowledge to harm the public, the government may imprison you, though you be completely innocent and even known to be completely innocent. Of course, the government would probably imprison you comfortably, since it would still consider you a friend, but it would be imprisoning you nevertheless, and the public need never know of it. It would imprison those supposed to be unfriendly less comfortably.
Also, we were invaded on 9/11 and before, and the people we're imprisoning are presumed to threaten public safety in conspiracy with the invaders. This is an open and shut case to people who aren't retarded international socialists.
You people deserve no respect.
I prefer teenyboppers who don't even pretend to care about politics over a bunch of Slashdot communists who pretend to care but don't actually read anything that will inform their opinions and who vote Democrat.
Google didn't make a damn thing popular. AJAX is only special because JavaScript execution is limited to the browser context for security and because stupid people imagine that some day it will be portable. Writing web applications that mimicked desktop applications--which is the real topic--was already a trend. Even AJAX had been popularized by Scottrade and perhaps others--years before Google did anything with it.
You scum associate AJAX with Google for two reason: 1) the media tell you to because: they're communists; Microsoft is a symbol of capitalism; Google might some day threaten Microsoft's existence with enough media help; and helping Google might destroy Microsoft as a milestone to extinguishing American freedom: and 2) you're a bunch of communists who, independently of the media con job, would do the same things the media do.
The association of AJAX with Google is 100% arbitrary and media-contrived. The purpose of this deceit is to destroy Microsoft. You're a bunch of commies.
Thank you.
You're not discussing user interfaces here. You're discussing their religion. They're communists who religiously hate Microsoft as a symbol of capitalism and reinforce and justify their hate with any tenuous arguments they can find.
Again . . .
"Presumably such support will include helping the plug-in developers that will assist Massachusetts migrate from a MS Office environment to one based upon ODF-compliant office productivity software."
"Presumably such support will include helping the plug-in developers that will assist Massachusetts migrate from a MS Office environment to one based upon ODF-compliant office productivity software."
"Presumably such support will include helping the plug-in developers that will assist Massachusetts migrate from a MS Office environment to one based upon ODF-compliant office productivity software."
He's not talking about Microsoft adding ODF compatibility to Office--Microsoft said as much. He's talking about Microsoft helping to develop his competitors' competing products. I hate Democrats.
He just didn't click the checkbox to enter plain text, retard.
Democrats have dominated the media and learning institutions for decades, and this whole time, their primary goal has been to prolong students' feelings of helplessness. Stupid, craven people vote Democrat.
As for the original topic of the thread, programming probably isn't very appealing now that the art is advanced. How intrepid would you feel laying bricks or painting a shed?
This functionality is indispensable: dynamic object links, autosaving, mail merging. If I used Word more, I'd have other examples. This is just a flashy toy that I could have written long ago. Ajax is easy. Hooray for the new web-based Wordpad.
Your erotic preferences, skin color, and religion, if they're relevant at all, are only relevant to account for your guilt and self-loathing.
Any citizen of the United States can improve himself until he's a Supreme Court Justice, Secretary of State, National Security Advisor, Senator, Representative, President (though, by historical accident, we lack precedent for that), or anything else. The conservative movement widely regards two black men, Thomas Sowell and Walter E. Williams, as their intellectual premiers.
Relatively few black people realize their potential because people like you discourage them. Rationally, the past is irrelevant to living blacks' present decisions whether to work hard, and those decisions whether to work hard entirely determine blacks' degrees of success. (During your panicked attempt to appear to dispute this, please explain in what respects blacks raised in fabulous wealth and freedom relative to the wealth of people in lands of true oppression throughout the world are disadvantaged relative to penniless immigrants arriving from those lands of true oppression--without reference to your own complicity in suppressing them here by your communist and racist--Democrat--propaganda.)
We're better than others at killing because we're better than they are at everything else. Wars are logistical contests fought by civilians on farms, in shops, and, in modern times, in factories and laboratories. We're better at all those other things because our culture is superior to theirs: we are free. I say "we" to humor you. In fact, "we" are white, black, Chinese, and anything else in America, Europe, Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, Australia, and maybe some other places. "We" are all people who embrace the superior culture developed by whites in America and Europe. For the record, I hate almost all of you politically correct, whiny Slashdotters. You're a bunch of emotionalist bitches.
Bull. The only advantage the iPod has ever had is MEDIA BIAS. The media are almost all Democrats, communists, environmentalists, feminists, pacifists, etc. who hate Microsoft (and Wal*Mart, pharmaceutical companies, oil companies, Halliburton, et al.). Apple opposes Microsoft and comprises a bunch of Democrats, communists, environmentalists, feminists, pacifists, etc. To this day, the communist media promotes Apple, Apple products generally, and iPods particularly almost any time a word appearing in a tech article can be tangentially related to any word appearing in Apple advertising copy. Without the decades-long communist media quest to defeat Microsoft via Apple, Apple would have died . . . decades ago. Apple is a zombie running on billions of dollars of free publicity from fellow travelers in the media who issue that free publicity purely for POLITICAL purposes. It's a grotesque spectacle, but there's something hilarious in it: Apple forbids anyone to install its operating system on hardware compatible with Windows to avoid direct competition. Hahaha. The pro-Apple commies tried to use government coercion to destroy Microsoft for much less.