Its not that they are spending money on democratic candidates, its that they are morphing their message so that it is in line with and supporting the democratic party's political message and strategy for the current campaign season.
How many of the Tea Partiers were homeless? How many of the people at the Tea Party protests were there because they had nowhere else to go? How many at the Tea Party protests were simply upper middle class white people bitching that they had to chip in for the assistance that they had received their entire lives?
Irrelevant i any case, there is no evidence fracking impacts any water supply.
If that's true, then there should be no reason whatsoever why they can't tell us exactly what they're using for fluid.
And I don't buy that shit "Trade Secret" argument. My right to safe water far trumps any notion that you have a "right" to trade secrets, or a "right" to profit.
Most of those "highly developed property rights" are also quite bullshit, as they basically argue that there should never be public ownership of land. Meaning that whoever has the most money gets it.
Say bye bye to National Parks and other wilderness areas. While I don't doubt there would be some groups willing to buy land to create said parks, I also know that those who would rather use the land for logging and strip mining have far deeper pockets.
Bullshit. In such a world, you would have to sue each and every one of them individually, and you would have to prove what % each company caused. Further, you would have to have the money to carry on such a lawsuit, especially considering they have far, far more, and access to better lawyers.
And the smartphone market? If you look at a more accurate number, like the number of phones with the iPhone OS or the Android OS on them, Android has double the market share of apple.
If you're going to go by devices on which the OS can run, shouldn't you be adding iPod Touches and iPads (and Android tablets) into that mix?
There's a huge difference between just choosing something that may not be popular, and bitching about something simply because it is popular. A lot of the latter is what happens here on/.
And that's why you will never understand free speech. They may be ignored, but I can still get it out there. If I couldn't, then if there was something that actually was important, and would be listened to, that could come down as well.
Again, I still don't want them to wield that kind of power. I would find it incredibly alarming that they would go in and randomly change someone's profile information like that.
PLLEEEAAASE. Get Real. No judge is going to take down a Q and A forum because somebody reports that one of the 8 million questions on the site is infringing on some copyrighted question (can you copyright a single question?) in some way.
Do you honestly want to take that chance?
And remember, one of the most egregious things about this bill is that there is NO JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT. The US Attorney General's office is responsible for maintaining a blacklist of sites that ISPs have to filter. There is no court hearing to put a site on that list.
And obviously you don't if you think he's not. I guarantee you that if he were to somehow be elected, come 2-3 years into his Presidency, you would be just as disappointed with him as many on the left are with Obama.
How long before the majority of the Slashdot crowd gets on board with limited Constitutional government
Yes, because I totally want a government that doesn't have the power to do shit. Companies would never think of moving in, assimilating that power, and abusing it. Nope, never gonna happen.
Its passage is far from assured. You've setup a large series of events in your prediction, but the first stone hasn't even been cast.
Stuff like that is just begging for this to be passed. We have to come out in full force now. Saying that there's all this stuff still in the way is just asking for people to be apathetic about it until it's too late.
Slashdot Mirror
Its not that they are spending money on democratic candidates, its that they are morphing their message so that it is in line with and supporting the democratic party's political message and strategy for the current campaign season.
Care to post evidence of this?
I must have missed the TEA Party riots
How could you? They brought the government to the brink of shutdown multiple times this year.
OWS: ...we'll use violence
Correct me if I'm wrong, but only one of the movements actually had people bringing guns to the rallies, and it wasn't OWS.
They have no solutions.
Neither did the Tea Party. They just wanted to remove any and all safeguards, and let the "free market" sort things out.
OWS protesters didn't carry guns to Town Hall meetings.
How many of the Tea Partiers were homeless? How many of the people at the Tea Party protests were there because they had nowhere else to go? How many at the Tea Party protests were simply upper middle class white people bitching that they had to chip in for the assistance that they had received their entire lives?
One group is for smaller, less intrusive government, period.
Which group is that? Cause it certainly isn't the Tea Party.
Irrelevant i any case, there is no evidence fracking impacts any water supply.
If that's true, then there should be no reason whatsoever why they can't tell us exactly what they're using for fluid.
And I don't buy that shit "Trade Secret" argument. My right to safe water far trumps any notion that you have a "right" to trade secrets, or a "right" to profit.
Bull shit. Are you trying to tell me that if there weren't any regulations at all, that these companies wouldn't be doing this shit at all?
Most of those "highly developed property rights" are also quite bullshit, as they basically argue that there should never be public ownership of land. Meaning that whoever has the most money gets it.
Say bye bye to National Parks and other wilderness areas. While I don't doubt there would be some groups willing to buy land to create said parks, I also know that those who would rather use the land for logging and strip mining have far deeper pockets.
Bullshit. In such a world, you would have to sue each and every one of them individually, and you would have to prove what % each company caused. Further, you would have to have the money to carry on such a lawsuit, especially considering they have far, far more, and access to better lawyers.
Well, it comes from the idea that you don't have priority over water simply because it flows over your land first.
It was my understanding that it was actually legal to do so for personal use. You just couldn't do it on a large scale, like for an entire farm.
The only thing that has kept me hanging on to a small set of shares is the idea that Microsoft is simply going to buy Nokia soon.
No, we don't. Most of us don't like actually talking on the phone.
And the smartphone market? If you look at a more accurate number, like the number of phones with the iPhone OS or the Android OS on them, Android has double the market share of apple.
If you're going to go by devices on which the OS can run, shouldn't you be adding iPod Touches and iPads (and Android tablets) into that mix?
There's a huge difference between just choosing something that may not be popular, and bitching about something simply because it is popular. A lot of the latter is what happens here on /.
So Nokia is targeting the hipster market? Only time will tell if they can actually wrest control of it from Apple.
And that's why you will never understand free speech. They may be ignored, but I can still get it out there. If I couldn't, then if there was something that actually was important, and would be listened to, that could come down as well.
Again, I still don't want them to wield that kind of power. I would find it incredibly alarming that they would go in and randomly change someone's profile information like that.
PLLEEEAAASE. Get Real. No judge is going to take down a Q and A forum because somebody reports that one of the 8 million questions on the site is infringing on some copyrighted question (can you copyright a single question?) in some way.
Do you honestly want to take that chance?
And remember, one of the most egregious things about this bill is that there is NO JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT. The US Attorney General's office is responsible for maintaining a blacklist of sites that ISPs have to filter. There is no court hearing to put a site on that list.
And obviously you don't if you think he's not. I guarantee you that if he were to somehow be elected, come 2-3 years into his Presidency, you would be just as disappointed with him as many on the left are with Obama.
How long before the majority of the Slashdot crowd gets on board with limited Constitutional government
Yes, because I totally want a government that doesn't have the power to do shit. Companies would never think of moving in, assimilating that power, and abusing it. Nope, never gonna happen.
Does Germany require you to register with their government before you visit? No.
Are you trying to tell me that you don't need a visa to visit Germany from outside the EU?
Its passage is far from assured. You've setup a large series of events in your prediction, but the first stone hasn't even been cast.
Stuff like that is just begging for this to be passed. We have to come out in full force now. Saying that there's all this stuff still in the way is just asking for people to be apathetic about it until it's too late.