Like the authorities who made those "laws" don't have to follow the laws limiting their authority--or the Feds whose actual job is to ensure natural rights don't have to enforce them in the States, only civil ones when they're politically useful?
Bullshit. The actual authors of this union's Constitution stated, repeatedly, frankly, any law that infringes or nullifies a right can, what? Be abrogated by the citizen with impugnity. It's only "radical" because dura lex sine jusiticia reigns once again.
I'm all for "law" that is "prudentia", i.e. for prudence or good; false laws pretending to be for public protection and other nonsense but really serve to erect unlawful monopolies, guilds, business protections, etc., are deprivations of rights under the colors of law--and those who make and enforce them deserve to be federally arrested and thrown down a hole as the Federal Code requires.
I live in Colorado, btw, notorious for this: the excuse here is that the cabs are a public utility. Strange that if I give a neighbor a lift for free it's legal but if he pays for gas it's technically and suddenly not. (Obviously they don't typically prosecute that, but selective enforcement to evade court scrutiny by ensuring the proofs the laws are not laws at all just invalidates the law in the first place.) That what millions do here daily, with insurance--including coverage of other occupants--is suddenly a public utility if any money or value, whatsoever, changes hands.
Go learn to think before citing dura lex without context. Even the Romans didn't put-up (long) with that bullshit. We just happen to be drunk under the stupor of "order" by force rather than...actual order. And it's damn time the boomers start getting off'd by their dementia to start eliminating their pseudo-sophisticate influences in that regard.
Moreover, you do realize the public figures who like to say "the laws the law" OPENLY MOCK THE IDEA THAT THERE IS ANY 'LAW' BESIDES FORCE--that is, in the law schools, don't you?
I DO get to choose the laws that I have to follow: if a "law" says to murder you--not going to do it; help you do it to or aid someone else in that, not going to do it; take your rights? not going to do it; assist any government actor in it? not going to do it.
Not really, as people who obsess over correctness tend to be idiots trying to gain acceptance among others of their kind.
When used without sarcasm it is also called "synecdoche", and it's part of the reason why the word for "step" is not the word for "no" in French, why various words that had the exact opposite meaning in English at their earliest record.
Moreover dropping parts strengthens the assertion, another common feature in English.
The basic feature, though, is the statement is psychologically understood, and understood almost universally--wan[na]:)~ know the opinion of people in China recently?
This is like all the fuddy duddies screaming "don't start with a conjunction" in my ears--then having funny citing Shakespear, Milton, the Bible...and everyone else; or "don't end with a preposition..."; or nowadays even dumber statements like forbidding the semi-colon.
The immigrants I know who speak 6 languages including English--one nearing the "I'm a UN translator" phase after self-teaching English at age 8 (having come here as a refugee granted asylum and escaped not only the ethnic cleansing that Clinton's bombing was meant to stop but also Clinton's bombing in Eastern Europe) though she already spoke 3 other languages (and nowadays I don't ask the number anymore) always becomes breathless at the bullshit asserted by the older generations in the US.
The solution is "get a specialized lawyer." A buddy of mine has been in training in the law since 9 years old (dad is the Constitutional variety) and then added an Accounting Degree (+CPA+[like 30 other sets of letters) and is not a fraud analyst. A doctor stuck a stethoscope in his wife's ear and billed a "surgery" to her insurance, BIG mistake...now they get free ear care.
Microsoft identified malware that had escaped Vitalwerks' detection. Upon notification and review of the evidence, Vitalwerks took immediate corrective action allowing Microsoft to identify victims of this malware.
Yeah, if waking up one day to find that most of your business has been handed over to another company is what passes for "notification" these days.
I hope Microsoft paid them handsomely.
For the land of the free, judicial misbehavior never seems to be mentioned when due a mention while it is blared from the rooftops when they rule correctly.
IT SEEMS to me that the most important target of criticism here is missing since Microsoft went to--and got--an order by an authority, who should have had the competence to know better than to seize the private property of one and hand it over to another private party. Then again, everyone is afraid of the oligarchy of robes.
I'm torn because whilst things like this sicken me (as a British citizen)
You mean "subject"? When Parliament began using "citizen" in Britain it still conferred or recognized almost no actual (meaning, inalienable) rights to the British subjects. Your EU citizenship meanwhile has guaranteed that the State must respect that you have rights at all (http://www.jcm.org.uk/blog/2009/08/british-citizenship-vs-european-citizenship/).
Best of wishes for you in the difficulties that lie ahead.
One headed down a positivist trajectory, setting a trend; one went the other way. The point is that "old men in the sky" bespeaks a lot of foolishness. Whether theistic or otherwise, philosophies that impose constraints and morals, mysteries and hard things to consider on how to be moral vs. simply succeed, always have a place in human endeavors, whether scientific or political, business or personal (though I see the latter as a somewhat false dichotomy). When these things are forgotten not only are bets on constraints on harms off (see China), the foundations of each of those spheres get undermined and their purposes becomes only "success", whatever that is in the eyes of the actor.
Not an assault on Darwin, assault on myths of Darwin and juxtaposition of the simple fact that the guy who had all the writing done and who was eventually ignored despite having demonstrably better work in some ways actually believed in some power in the sky if not an old man. And no challenge is made here to the place of Darwin's work as significant in history.;)
Nobody but Americans talk about religion in science.
The rest of the planet doesn't care about old men in the sky.
Whereas Alfred Russel Wallace, who I believe can rightly be regarded as far more legitimate than Darwin himself (after all, he had a working paper that was observational while Darwin was still putsing and had nothing written, read Wallace's work, and back-fit "his" ideas to the notes from his voyage) but who simply wasn't a famous noble (damn pleb, stay out of the spotlight!), elucidated a theory of theism and the impossibility of life without it.
The general trouble faced by all for, as Hayek put it (slightly differently), rejecting "old men in the sky", is the reduction of vocabulary and thousands of years' refined traditions for thought of every kind; it's not accident the scientific revolution was preceded by religions ones, which formed the vocabularies necessary and led to the careful parsing of matters to be able to make distinctions and think clearly; nor that wherever religious have retreated throughout the globe, tyranny and mass murder have followed on scales unprecedented in history.
But hell, reject "religion" and one rejects the theoretical fundamentals. I've seen university professors go ape-shit when saying this, then reply to them such that the historically liberally ones STFU, and it takes only one word: "Spinoza."
Interestingly, a Christian-just-God-deist-Spinozan coalition on theology produced a document that put rights of man above the reach of rulers, wrote a whole document imbued with that philosophy and said it was only a silver mirror to a declaration that was gold and annunciated it; they were promptly ignored by others who don't "care" about the God of Nature or Nature's God, and their legal theory is tiraded againts on my country's shores by the "originalists" who reduce themselves in these moments to children with minds intolerant of something that can't be defined or set around an equal sign mathematically, with statements like "organic law is a theology, and not a theory of law." No, for lawyers, anything but brute force to the heads of all is no law at all--cause God ain't there.
One thing folks beyond our watery borders never have gotten is that religion has pretty much been a benefit to keep those mofo's in check at home, voting the cynics out or constraining what they can do. (Why they tirade about their being "idiots!!!!") It's as religion has declined in America that largely things have gotten worse, not only on account of removing the traditions and particulars that prevent a larger portion of people from buying their bullshitting or accepting the kind of things which only add to their historical litany of gross harms to human rights (forcible sterilization by the "superior" class of "educated" professionals who graduated stupid-U with inculcation of Darwinism? Only a troglodyte would dissent!).
Of course, as the sophistication of religion is drowned, its adherents' own harmfulness rises: the whole point of religion is largely to "do no harm", at least in the Christian tradition ("harmless as doves...", "...children of the Father..."), which includes the "do to prevent harm", which a certain left here hates heatedly. People hate religion because it can be used to coerce, yet then impose their own flimsier, undeveloped, and evidently harmful (which from the consequences which keep recurring, is obvious) ethics and shame, silent, threaten...in a totalitarian streak instead of fearful of a God should they be wrong.
My point is, really, "old men in the sky" shows a level of theological understanding that predates the Empires of Egypt and Nubia, or the Logos of Egypt, probably comes from those who think everything "Jew" is just late-made-up writing anyway (even as among some of the most significant of Egyptologists continue to uncover long-lost and forgotten sites are found by using Jewish writings) and don't know that the oldest mentions of a theology that is truly Divine comes
Tell this to the ****** (self-censoring) judge: Tor was funded by the US government to permit those under totalitarian and murderous regimes engaging in human rights abuses gain access to information outside of State controls and preserve their anonymity against those who might kill or substantially harm them.
p.s. Funny how its (US's) own agencies are now desperate to destroy or infiltrate it...
the founding fathers never envisioned an article in the Constitution that would legitimaze the rise against the legitimate authority
"legitimate" and "authority" didn't mean "elected" and "power" in their parlance; and they were quite clear on this; infringe a natural right and you loose legitimacy; wield power to enforce it and you are a tyrant.
And about that part of never envisioning, a little nobody named Jefferson (along with similar statements of a few others) mentioned the need for mass use of Amendment II, well, about every 20 years...
Why would anyone sell shovels? If it was profitable, they'd dig everything themselves.
Actually, the real profit is in licensing the shovels with a per-scoop fee.
It's about balancing risk. Some people prefer taking a shot at mining. Some people prefer selling shovels. Some people probably do both.
Actually, it's about capital. If you lack access to it then once you're done making the money printer you don't have enough left to run it. So you sell the damn thing at a slight profit and build yet more, relying on the prior aggregation and assembly of capital in a useable form to produce something of value (more capital).
At some point it becomes about risk if you can afford to no longer sell them, but then someone else who can afford to print on their own but continues to sell them because of structuring their factors of production (including capital) which includes revenues from sales can give them an edge may mean you take a whole other level of risk on by relying on only one source of income.
Better get all the revenue possible, specializing, and out-innovate the other guy though, by doing this you may simply lose your skills edge to run and wield the thing you yourself are producing better than your buyers: suddenly we have a symbiotic relationship of maker and user and neither has the edge over the other in terms of the other's particular discipline and scope!
And of course, each have separate kinds of capital so even if you know how to mine better, they may have better conditions and contracts and equipment and environmental conditions and....:)~
You seem to be all for the utter and total betrayal of the "beta" soldiers, for the betterment of the "alpha" soldiers. There doesn't seem to be much else to say.
And you're a context-ignoring troll, willfully. He's saying that a byproduct of these people who are deemed (by you) to be idiots and useful tools for the "swine" of the MIC is that the betas don't actually have to be sacrificed up the hill; they're weeded-out of the process altogether (hence preserved) because a volunteer military PREVENTS a draft.
Go bad and read it--unless you're just trolling. A beneficial consequence of the draft is we don't send flesh into a shredder just to slow the shredder down.
And since folks like yourself lambast a great portion of a nation for aspiring to something like duty and being noble and "serving country", without particularizing the fault and explicating how this undermines those very ideals--though indeed general language has it splace--there doesn't seem to be much else to say.
However should you take some time to produce examples, give the context, explain it, reference sources, argue details, etc. then you may even produce convincement for those noble savages to hold-off on aiding the MIC with their sensibilities of duty and patriotism, and more importantly strength of body, to instead turn such principles towards the demand that the MIC actually serve the ideal of nation which endears them to patriotism.
Just a thought, but the Communist party is still designated a totalitarian subversive organization. That may have something to do with "issues" they are a having--and that classification DOES hinge on their own writings, histories, consequences of Communism being disastrous and rights-destroying globally...
Don't know if others here are getting this, but if I click to the left of the comments Youtube Videos load and cover the comments page. If anyone else is seeing this behavior on Slashdot, any suggestions to stop it? (I have JS disabled so maybe this is a downside to HTML5 for which will be needed new methods of crippling the shit thrown-into browser by the likes of whoever took-over and ruined Mozilla in the name of "empowering designers!!! TAKE BACK THE WEB [from the user]".)
[...] the Byzantine Empire, which was what they called the eastern half of the Roman Empire after the Empire split).
Common mistake. As it was ruled by direct succession of Emperors from Rome itself and under the same laws (though developing, of course), and much of the same society, peoples, etc., the peoples of Byzantium called their Empire...Rome. So did their eventual conquerors and the proto-states of Today's Turkey, and various languages call Greek-speaking Turks and Greeks "Rum" or "Roman". Colloquial Greek itself still calls Greek-speakers "Romeyka", meaning "Roman" since they are (or like to think of themselves as)...the descendents/escapees of Rome/its conquerors and their successors.
Okay, mind indicating the best way for doing so in, say, User Agent Switcher for Firefox? e.g. know which field actually transmits...or maybe you know a better agent with more mark-up and which field in options for a given agent to use?
I ask because I look and see a lot of options, for instance, like "Description" or "Vendor" and don't know precisely what actually transmits and which one to enter text like this into.
NSA letters, if my occassional skimming on the topic is correct, are gag orders about themselves as well. There are apparently ways to legally respond in the public to these without revealing one has been received but it involves not talking rather than talking.
As much as scientists in other fields adore outspoken, know-it-all physicists, Bakâ(TM)s audacious idea â" that the brainâ(TM)s ordered complexity and thinking ability arise spontaneously from the disordered electrical activity of neurons â" did not meet with immediate acceptance.
It goes to administration, which like HR professionals always expands its own class, hence pay and lobbying power, hence tentacles through a system, and then repeat. Give all a raise--and throw-in tenured profs (especially those with admin privilges themselves) for good measure, and repeat again.
To adapt Reagan's motto: "defund the [administrative class]."
Matter of factly, my first thought seeing this summary is, "I don't know enough about these things" (little to nothing, really) "but every time I see some 'simple' solution to a security hole like TOTAL SHIFT OVER it seems to be some kind of propaganda by interested parties to undermine something widely adopted the works for something obscure and promising" (HYPED) "that likely works in their favor." Of course, then counter-propaganda may ensue...the safest bet is to hide in the closet till you starve to death.
Still not the point: the point is, the issue here was copyright. Throwing-in sleights and attacks based on something else, ridiculous. Then protesting that it's being narrow? hah. And it isn't being black-and-white, it is being "correct", meaning precise, honest, to-the-point. If you wanted to make it something else you might say, "on another issue, these people..." but otherwise I simply won't appreciate what you're saying by saying and not saying. That kind of allusive dishonest (intended or not--context does matter) should be called-out every time.
The unfortunate truth is, the businesses serving the general that survive are typically those who DON'T care--they keep their problems separate from customers' to a great degree. In niches and technical services there are exceptions. But you don't see Google putting-up easy means to contact them very directly, not anyone that matters--and the unspoken 'secret' is that proficient people don't use gmail anyway, they go with AOL, Comcast, or CenturyLink e-mail services...and all of those [quite unacceptable] companies actually take huge losses supporting crap that really aren't their issues: to the point that to survive you either turn-off empathy and keep it a very distant professionalism, or your quite (I know this first-hand). I'm talking the fact that...tens of thousands of the idiots call screaming that they're not paying for what they can't use (because their computer is broken) or they demand the company sends someone to install everything they have for free (because though using DSL they removed their own phone jacks while re-doing the basement) or their iShit isn't working (which constantly have problems connecting properly because the networking software is improperly done) or [I won't accept that last agent's explanation that my computer is broken, it's been working 6 years!!!!] and more...
All of those are just examples from my last hour handling such people last night: they're not even very important in the light of the fact that simple support of what you actually are either responsible for because it's your stuff or because you've agreed to do it usually means dealing with someone whose verbal and technical ability is about on par with an advance form of dementia. Now magnify this over millions and then ponder why (a) large companies would be i. secretive ii. defenive iii. lobby to-death in their advantage (when politicians will gladly come tear them apart for being tze 'evilz') (b) selectively empathetic (c) push costs and quality down as much as possible while raising prices (d) etc. They can't keep-up the contact with these idiots--it's only getting worse with the downward spiral of Amerika obsessing over its [bad] food and [bad] "entertainment" rather than working to understand real things and doing real work.
Castigating someone who is whining on behalf of those who have little to no intelligence on such topics is therefore not a good way to stifle intelligent discussion, but a good way to point-out the bullshit that passes for intelligence. And the point is: if you want big-budget info/enter-tainment for nuthin', oh well. If you feel like you deserve a service that someone else refuses, it's probably not discrimination, it's probably not even about you at all (nobody is thinking of entering eastern Europe any time soon in a big way, haven't been and especially now really really aren't: thanks Eur-asian progressivism! The latter really being, by the way, the self-describing term used by those movements that gave us the darling gems stretching from Russia's western borders to the pacific, and down through to the Indian ocean.) If you want it...build it yourself. Take the risks (it may be a colossal failure and you may not get your life back but at least you can exchange former dreams for future respect for trying), don't demand it from somebody else--you could go to convince them or their shareholders, however.
Thinking at a tank pointed at your face--or your friends' or allies'--is wishful thinking of the kind that certainly is appropriate to faux intellectualism. Have at it.:)
Slashdot Mirror
Like the authorities who made those "laws" don't have to follow the laws limiting their authority--or the Feds whose actual job is to ensure natural rights don't have to enforce them in the States, only civil ones when they're politically useful?
Bullshit. The actual authors of this union's Constitution stated, repeatedly, frankly, any law that infringes or nullifies a right can, what? Be abrogated by the citizen with impugnity. It's only "radical" because dura lex sine jusiticia reigns once again.
I'm all for "law" that is "prudentia", i.e. for prudence or good; false laws pretending to be for public protection and other nonsense but really serve to erect unlawful monopolies, guilds, business protections, etc., are deprivations of rights under the colors of law--and those who make and enforce them deserve to be federally arrested and thrown down a hole as the Federal Code requires.
I live in Colorado, btw, notorious for this: the excuse here is that the cabs are a public utility. Strange that if I give a neighbor a lift for free it's legal but if he pays for gas it's technically and suddenly not. (Obviously they don't typically prosecute that, but selective enforcement to evade court scrutiny by ensuring the proofs the laws are not laws at all just invalidates the law in the first place.) That what millions do here daily, with insurance--including coverage of other occupants--is suddenly a public utility if any money or value, whatsoever, changes hands.
Go learn to think before citing dura lex without context. Even the Romans didn't put-up (long) with that bullshit. We just happen to be drunk under the stupor of "order" by force rather than...actual order. And it's damn time the boomers start getting off'd by their dementia to start eliminating their pseudo-sophisticate influences in that regard.
Moreover, you do realize the public figures who like to say "the laws the law" OPENLY MOCK THE IDEA THAT THERE IS ANY 'LAW' BESIDES FORCE--that is, in the law schools, don't you?
I DO get to choose the laws that I have to follow: if a "law" says to murder you--not going to do it; help you do it to or aid someone else in that, not going to do it; take your rights? not going to do it; assist any government actor in it? not going to do it.
Grow a pair.
Not really, as people who obsess over correctness tend to be idiots trying to gain acceptance among others of their kind.
:)~ know the opinion of people in China recently?
When used without sarcasm it is also called "synecdoche", and it's part of the reason why the word for "step" is not the word for "no" in French, why various words that had the exact opposite meaning in English at their earliest record.
Moreover dropping parts strengthens the assertion, another common feature in English.
The basic feature, though, is the statement is psychologically understood, and understood almost universally--wan[na]
This is like all the fuddy duddies screaming "don't start with a conjunction" in my ears--then having funny citing Shakespear, Milton, the Bible...and everyone else; or "don't end with a preposition..."; or nowadays even dumber statements like forbidding the semi-colon.
The immigrants I know who speak 6 languages including English--one nearing the "I'm a UN translator" phase after self-teaching English at age 8 (having come here as a refugee granted asylum and escaped not only the ethnic cleansing that Clinton's bombing was meant to stop but also Clinton's bombing in Eastern Europe) though she already spoke 3 other languages (and nowadays I don't ask the number anymore) always becomes breathless at the bullshit asserted by the older generations in the US.
The solution is "get a specialized lawyer." A buddy of mine has been in training in the law since 9 years old (dad is the Constitutional variety) and then added an Accounting Degree (+CPA+[like 30 other sets of letters) and is not a fraud analyst. A doctor stuck a stethoscope in his wife's ear and billed a "surgery" to her insurance, BIG mistake...now they get free ear care.
Samuel Gompers would like to have a word with you.
For the land of the free, judicial misbehavior never seems to be mentioned when due a mention while it is blared from the rooftops when they rule correctly. IT SEEMS to me that the most important target of criticism here is missing since Microsoft went to--and got--an order by an authority, who should have had the competence to know better than to seize the private property of one and hand it over to another private party. Then again, everyone is afraid of the oligarchy of robes.
I'm torn because whilst things like this sicken me (as a British citizen)
You mean "subject"? When Parliament began using "citizen" in Britain it still conferred or recognized almost no actual (meaning, inalienable) rights to the British subjects. Your EU citizenship meanwhile has guaranteed that the State must respect that you have rights at all (http://www.jcm.org.uk/blog/2009/08/british-citizenship-vs-european-citizenship/). Best of wishes for you in the difficulties that lie ahead.
One headed down a positivist trajectory, setting a trend; one went the other way. The point is that "old men in the sky" bespeaks a lot of foolishness. Whether theistic or otherwise, philosophies that impose constraints and morals, mysteries and hard things to consider on how to be moral vs. simply succeed, always have a place in human endeavors, whether scientific or political, business or personal (though I see the latter as a somewhat false dichotomy). When these things are forgotten not only are bets on constraints on harms off (see China), the foundations of each of those spheres get undermined and their purposes becomes only "success", whatever that is in the eyes of the actor.
Not an assault on Darwin, assault on myths of Darwin and juxtaposition of the simple fact that the guy who had all the writing done and who was eventually ignored despite having demonstrably better work in some ways actually believed in some power in the sky if not an old man. And no challenge is made here to the place of Darwin's work as significant in history. ;)
Nobody but Americans talk about religion in science. The rest of the planet doesn't care about old men in the sky.
Whereas Alfred Russel Wallace, who I believe can rightly be regarded as far more legitimate than Darwin himself (after all, he had a working paper that was observational while Darwin was still putsing and had nothing written, read Wallace's work, and back-fit "his" ideas to the notes from his voyage) but who simply wasn't a famous noble (damn pleb, stay out of the spotlight!), elucidated a theory of theism and the impossibility of life without it.
The general trouble faced by all for, as Hayek put it (slightly differently), rejecting "old men in the sky", is the reduction of vocabulary and thousands of years' refined traditions for thought of every kind; it's not accident the scientific revolution was preceded by religions ones, which formed the vocabularies necessary and led to the careful parsing of matters to be able to make distinctions and think clearly; nor that wherever religious have retreated throughout the globe, tyranny and mass murder have followed on scales unprecedented in history.
But hell, reject "religion" and one rejects the theoretical fundamentals. I've seen university professors go ape-shit when saying this, then reply to them such that the historically liberally ones STFU, and it takes only one word: "Spinoza."
Interestingly, a Christian-just-God-deist-Spinozan coalition on theology produced a document that put rights of man above the reach of rulers, wrote a whole document imbued with that philosophy and said it was only a silver mirror to a declaration that was gold and annunciated it; they were promptly ignored by others who don't "care" about the God of Nature or Nature's God, and their legal theory is tiraded againts on my country's shores by the "originalists" who reduce themselves in these moments to children with minds intolerant of something that can't be defined or set around an equal sign mathematically, with statements like "organic law is a theology, and not a theory of law." No, for lawyers, anything but brute force to the heads of all is no law at all--cause God ain't there.
One thing folks beyond our watery borders never have gotten is that religion has pretty much been a benefit to keep those mofo's in check at home, voting the cynics out or constraining what they can do. (Why they tirade about their being "idiots!!!!") It's as religion has declined in America that largely things have gotten worse, not only on account of removing the traditions and particulars that prevent a larger portion of people from buying their bullshitting or accepting the kind of things which only add to their historical litany of gross harms to human rights (forcible sterilization by the "superior" class of "educated" professionals who graduated stupid-U with inculcation of Darwinism? Only a troglodyte would dissent!).
Of course, as the sophistication of religion is drowned, its adherents' own harmfulness rises: the whole point of religion is largely to "do no harm", at least in the Christian tradition ("harmless as doves...", "...children of the Father..."), which includes the "do to prevent harm", which a certain left here hates heatedly. People hate religion because it can be used to coerce, yet then impose their own flimsier, undeveloped, and evidently harmful (which from the consequences which keep recurring, is obvious) ethics and shame, silent, threaten...in a totalitarian streak instead of fearful of a God should they be wrong.
My point is, really, "old men in the sky" shows a level of theological understanding that predates the Empires of Egypt and Nubia, or the Logos of Egypt, probably comes from those who think everything "Jew" is just late-made-up writing anyway (even as among some of the most significant of Egyptologists continue to uncover long-lost and forgotten sites are found by using Jewish writings) and don't know that the oldest mentions of a theology that is truly Divine comes
Tell this to the ****** (self-censoring) judge: Tor was funded by the US government to permit those under totalitarian and murderous regimes engaging in human rights abuses gain access to information outside of State controls and preserve their anonymity against those who might kill or substantially harm them. p.s. Funny how its (US's) own agencies are now desperate to destroy or infiltrate it...
the founding fathers never envisioned an article in the Constitution that would legitimaze the rise against the legitimate authority
"legitimate" and "authority" didn't mean "elected" and "power" in their parlance; and they were quite clear on this; infringe a natural right and you loose legitimacy; wield power to enforce it and you are a tyrant. And about that part of never envisioning, a little nobody named Jefferson (along with similar statements of a few others) mentioned the need for mass use of Amendment II, well, about every 20 years...
The government can invalidate contracts but they can't force you to sign contracts or force you do things you don't want to do.
You missed the batshit Obamacare ruling, didn't you?
Actually, it's about capital. If you lack access to it then once you're done making the money printer you don't have enough left to run it. So you sell the damn thing at a slight profit and build yet more, relying on the prior aggregation and assembly of capital in a useable form to produce something of value (more capital).
:)~
At some point it becomes about risk if you can afford to no longer sell them, but then someone else who can afford to print on their own but continues to sell them because of structuring their factors of production (including capital) which includes revenues from sales can give them an edge may mean you take a whole other level of risk on by relying on only one source of income.
Better get all the revenue possible, specializing, and out-innovate the other guy though, by doing this you may simply lose your skills edge to run and wield the thing you yourself are producing better than your buyers: suddenly we have a symbiotic relationship of maker and user and neither has the edge over the other in terms of the other's particular discipline and scope!
And of course, each have separate kinds of capital so even if you know how to mine better, they may have better conditions and contracts and equipment and environmental conditions and....
(Gotzta love deh economicz.)
You seem to be all for the utter and total betrayal of the "beta" soldiers, for the betterment of the "alpha" soldiers. There doesn't seem to be much else to say.
And you're a context-ignoring troll, willfully. He's saying that a byproduct of these people who are deemed (by you) to be idiots and useful tools for the "swine" of the MIC is that the betas don't actually have to be sacrificed up the hill; they're weeded-out of the process altogether (hence preserved) because a volunteer military PREVENTS a draft. Go bad and read it--unless you're just trolling. A beneficial consequence of the draft is we don't send flesh into a shredder just to slow the shredder down. And since folks like yourself lambast a great portion of a nation for aspiring to something like duty and being noble and "serving country", without particularizing the fault and explicating how this undermines those very ideals--though indeed general language has it splace--there doesn't seem to be much else to say. However should you take some time to produce examples, give the context, explain it, reference sources, argue details, etc. then you may even produce convincement for those noble savages to hold-off on aiding the MIC with their sensibilities of duty and patriotism, and more importantly strength of body, to instead turn such principles towards the demand that the MIC actually serve the ideal of nation which endears them to patriotism.
Just a thought, but the Communist party is still designated a totalitarian subversive organization. That may have something to do with "issues" they are a having--and that classification DOES hinge on their own writings, histories, consequences of Communism being disastrous and rights-destroying globally...
What's with clicking on a /. page margin showing Youtube videos?
Don't know if others here are getting this, but if I click to the left of the comments Youtube Videos load and cover the comments page. If anyone else is seeing this behavior on Slashdot, any suggestions to stop it? (I have JS disabled so maybe this is a downside to HTML5 for which will be needed new methods of crippling the shit thrown-into browser by the likes of whoever took-over and ruined Mozilla in the name of "empowering designers!!! TAKE BACK THE WEB [from the user]".)
[...] the Byzantine Empire, which was what they called the eastern half of the Roman Empire after the Empire split).
Common mistake. As it was ruled by direct succession of Emperors from Rome itself and under the same laws (though developing, of course), and much of the same society, peoples, etc., the peoples of Byzantium called their Empire...Rome. So did their eventual conquerors and the proto-states of Today's Turkey, and various languages call Greek-speaking Turks and Greeks "Rum" or "Roman". Colloquial Greek itself still calls Greek-speakers "Romeyka", meaning "Roman" since they are (or like to think of themselves as)...the descendents/escapees of Rome/its conquerors and their successors.
Okay, mind indicating the best way for doing so in, say, User Agent Switcher for Firefox? e.g. know which field actually transmits...or maybe you know a better agent with more mark-up and which field in options for a given agent to use?
I ask because I look and see a lot of options, for instance, like "Description" or "Vendor" and don't know precisely what actually transmits and which one to enter text like this into.
NSA letters, if my occassional skimming on the topic is correct, are gag orders about themselves as well. There are apparently ways to legally respond in the public to these without revealing one has been received but it involves not talking rather than talking.
It goes to administration, which like HR professionals always expands its own class, hence pay and lobbying power, hence tentacles through a system, and then repeat. Give all a raise--and throw-in tenured profs (especially those with admin privilges themselves) for good measure, and repeat again.
To adapt Reagan's motto: "defund the [administrative class]."
Matter of factly, my first thought seeing this summary is, "I don't know enough about these things" (little to nothing, really) "but every time I see some 'simple' solution to a security hole like TOTAL SHIFT OVER it seems to be some kind of propaganda by interested parties to undermine something widely adopted the works for something obscure and promising" (HYPED) "that likely works in their favor." Of course, then counter-propaganda may ensue...the safest bet is to hide in the closet till you starve to death.
Still not the point: the point is, the issue here was copyright. Throwing-in sleights and attacks based on something else, ridiculous. Then protesting that it's being narrow? hah. And it isn't being black-and-white, it is being "correct", meaning precise, honest, to-the-point. If you wanted to make it something else you might say, "on another issue, these people..." but otherwise I simply won't appreciate what you're saying by saying and not saying. That kind of allusive dishonest (intended or not--context does matter) should be called-out every time.
The unfortunate truth is, the businesses serving the general that survive are typically those who DON'T care--they keep their problems separate from customers' to a great degree. In niches and technical services there are exceptions. But you don't see Google putting-up easy means to contact them very directly, not anyone that matters--and the unspoken 'secret' is that proficient people don't use gmail anyway, they go with AOL, Comcast, or CenturyLink e-mail services...and all of those [quite unacceptable] companies actually take huge losses supporting crap that really aren't their issues: to the point that to survive you either turn-off empathy and keep it a very distant professionalism, or your quite (I know this first-hand). I'm talking the fact that...tens of thousands of the idiots call screaming that they're not paying for what they can't use (because their computer is broken) or they demand the company sends someone to install everything they have for free (because though using DSL they removed their own phone jacks while re-doing the basement) or their iShit isn't working (which constantly have problems connecting properly because the networking software is improperly done) or [I won't accept that last agent's explanation that my computer is broken, it's been working 6 years!!!!] and more...
All of those are just examples from my last hour handling such people last night: they're not even very important in the light of the fact that simple support of what you actually are either responsible for because it's your stuff or because you've agreed to do it usually means dealing with someone whose verbal and technical ability is about on par with an advance form of dementia. Now magnify this over millions and then ponder why (a) large companies would be i. secretive ii. defenive iii. lobby to-death in their advantage (when politicians will gladly come tear them apart for being tze 'evilz') (b) selectively empathetic (c) push costs and quality down as much as possible while raising prices (d) etc. They can't keep-up the contact with these idiots--it's only getting worse with the downward spiral of Amerika obsessing over its [bad] food and [bad] "entertainment" rather than working to understand real things and doing real work.
Castigating someone who is whining on behalf of those who have little to no intelligence on such topics is therefore not a good way to stifle intelligent discussion, but a good way to point-out the bullshit that passes for intelligence. And the point is: if you want big-budget info/enter-tainment for nuthin', oh well. If you feel like you deserve a service that someone else refuses, it's probably not discrimination, it's probably not even about you at all (nobody is thinking of entering eastern Europe any time soon in a big way, haven't been and especially now really really aren't: thanks Eur-asian progressivism! The latter really being, by the way, the self-describing term used by those movements that gave us the darling gems stretching from Russia's western borders to the pacific, and down through to the Indian ocean.) If you want it...build it yourself. Take the risks (it may be a colossal failure and you may not get your life back but at least you can exchange former dreams for future respect for trying), don't demand it from somebody else--you could go to convince them or their shareholders, however.
Thinking at a tank pointed at your face--or your friends' or allies'--is wishful thinking of the kind that certainly is appropriate to faux intellectualism. Have at it. :)