Today we have just discussed that right wing parties, rarely acted pro people, and even when they did, they end up damaging them in the long run.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2030288&cid=35437634
a lot of people provided a lot of defenses, justifications, this and that in defense of them. but behold - just another anti-people move, this time totally negligent and uncaring about the consequences of SELLING off a resource that PEOPLE are using. (not to mention military)
YOUR resource, being sold to private parties. the justification seems reasonable as always - 'but we will provide a emergency band with funds'.
the simple question below, would never be answered properly by these people :
why are you not taxing the rich, to whom you are giving tax breaks over and over even when the society is in severe distress, while poor keeps paying tax without being able to dodge it, but selling a resource that belongs to PEOPLE.
let me summarize you what's going on : he is the whore of certain private interests, who are interested in buying those bands, and with their order, he is coming up with this great plan to fund something that is seemingly going to be helpful to people, by selling off what belongs to people.
There is no other way of putting it. When you get served, you get served. and apple, has got served. much better for apple and its fans to take lessons from it, accepting the result, to better their stuff, than to try to spin and defend it.
you fools gave your houses to the right wing party. right wing parties anywhere around the world, always support corporations over people.
it doesnt matter what your reasons or excuses for voting for a right wing party. you may even be quite right and correct in your reasons. BUT, a right wing party will always support corporations over people, in every way they can. even their acts which appear pro-people, will end up being pro-corp in the long run.
well. isnt that the definition of any kind of society/democracy ? there are good, there are the bad. in the end, they reflect the overall view of their lot, and the reflection of the society in them.
former supereme court chief justice john marshal, does not have jack shit authority in regard to political history, for these already have happened, and political science, for he is not a scientist.
some random partial judge making out concepts out of his own ass because of his political views and willful ignorance of political science, does not change science.
syria calling itself a republic does not make it a republic. even if there is an assembly there, the parties, candidates, are still rigged/controlled. yet, technically, it fulfills the requirements of a democracy on the outside.
of course these are already in use. but, this doesnt prevent parties in usa from patenting them. you forgot the hilarious array of patents that were filed by ibm, microsoft in the last 2-3 years ? most of which were discussed here ?
switzerland is a republic. most of the laws are decided by direct referandum. citizens, individually, can create bills and start referandums and get them accepted.
you will soon see bastards attempting AND succeeding to patent very basic mechanics of the machinery and systems that run modern society.
just one thinks that we have hit the rock bottom of the pit that is capitalism, now we are really at a point of allowing ownership of basic logic. way to go.
quite. it was still decentralized tho, it was a federal republic in which different states had their own assembly and decision making power to varying degrees.
The reason you're stupid is that you just take it for granted that removing privacy would somehow cause people to become completely accepting and non-judgmental.
the reason you are a moron is that, you had produced that statement out of your ass yourself. nowhere in any prior messages, such a recipe was given by me.
however, it is true that removal of privacy does indeed cause society to become more accepting of commonly occurring phenomenon. most of the stuff that you take as normal oddities these days, had been sins or offenses against society decades ago. its because it has become apparent that people were doing these in numbers that their 'severity' has been reduced in public perception. unfortunately, this even goes true about crime. it is so common in some countries that, people are taking having a small list of criminal offenses in their record as normal.
there is no difference in between them. these morons, and i say morons, not to mormons but to the right wing ignorant circles in usa, utter this word as if it is contrary to centralization. "but this country is a republic !!"
iiiis iiit ? so, france is also a republic. and there are no state rights or states there.
switzerland is also a republic, and the decentralization there is MUCH bigger than the one in usa.
these ignorants seem to think that 'republic'/'democracy' etc have anything to do with centralization/federalization/decentralization.
they do not. you can have fascism, yet it can be decentralized (like in feudal times), you can have a democracy/republic, yet it can be more centralized than anything else.
its all about who does the decision making. elected representatives of people, or else.
its appalling that even here there are fools that have the same misconception - hey, doing a google search and reading a wikipedia article with endless references to political science documents is not that hard ? why not take action now, and dont make out yourself come out as an ignorant bimbo.
if nothing is secret, homophobes kicking other peoples' asses wont be able to do it in secret too. because its not secret, they wont be able to do that.
if people dont look down on alcoholics, just like how they shouldnt take someone's ass being naked as something that is 'rude', there wont be any need to hide that information either.
,BR>
same goes for all your examples.
do i need to remind you that, in engineering and applied sciences in general, depending on context, a number that is close to zero enough, is taken as zero ?
the 'supply/demand' in regard to cost is so irrelevant in this case that, it is at a point of 'nil' in these calculations.
you will need to analyze the situation as 'attractiveness of the product' versus 'the hassle to acquire the product' and so on. not in regard to price. because, it is at a price point at which people are thinking that it is free.
all the economic theories and their founding principles stem from 18th century. they perceive and keep the basis of that reality.
the fact that someone sitting on its ass in a living room would be able to buy something for a dime and have it delivered instantly to its own living room with almost nonexistent cost, was never a reality at any point in time up till this decade.
econ 101, 102, do not apply anymore. many of the people who are buying that book, actually are not even demanding that book - they are buying it for 'just in case', because its cheap enough to not even care about its cost.
would you really care if the society didnt have any bias in regard to downloading porn, and found out that you have been downloading porn ? no.
its because society is acting/reacting on that information that you are desiring to have privacy. if nobody cared that your ass was bare or not, you wouldnt hesitate from going about naked. which was the case in early days of mankind. then we developed a bias that says asses should be covered. despite that the ass is still there, hidden, and everybody knows it.
same goes for govt. why would you care if govt. know what you did, if the govt. was not going to do anything bad with that information ? no.
so problem is not hiding what you are doing. problem is out there, in the society and government and so on. (actually govt. is included in society).
solution of this is ultimate transparency. nothing should be hidden, nothing should be judged if it doesnt harm another human being. this also goes for governments. there should be no secrets.
there will remain no need for privacy or secrecy then.
Slashdot Mirror
This is the 5th drupal psuedo-story in the duration of a month ?
REALLY ?
Today we have just discussed that right wing parties, rarely acted pro people, and even when they did, they end up damaging them in the long run.
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2030288&cid=35437634
a lot of people provided a lot of defenses, justifications, this and that in defense of them. but behold - just another anti-people move, this time totally negligent and uncaring about the consequences of SELLING off a resource that PEOPLE are using. (not to mention military)
YOUR resource, being sold to private parties. the justification seems reasonable as always - 'but we will provide a emergency band with funds'.
the simple question below, would never be answered properly by these people :
why are you not taxing the rich, to whom you are giving tax breaks over and over even when the society is in severe distress, while poor keeps paying tax without being able to dodge it, but selling a resource that belongs to PEOPLE.
let me summarize you what's going on : he is the whore of certain private interests, who are interested in buying those bands, and with their order, he is coming up with this great plan to fund something that is seemingly going to be helpful to people, by selling off what belongs to people.
as = by. mistake.
way too jumpy, you are, padawan.
Now we got lasers, but where are the shields ?
ie8 fell almost as quickly, but neither windows, nor ie, were being touted by 'safe and secure' as their fanbois.
There is no other way of putting it. When you get served, you get served. and apple, has got served. much better for apple and its fans to take lessons from it, accepting the result, to better their stuff, than to try to spin and defend it.
you fools gave your houses to the right wing party. right wing parties anywhere around the world, always support corporations over people.
it doesnt matter what your reasons or excuses for voting for a right wing party. you may even be quite right and correct in your reasons. BUT, a right wing party will always support corporations over people, in every way they can. even their acts which appear pro-people, will end up being pro-corp in the long run.
well. isnt that the definition of any kind of society/democracy ? there are good, there are the bad. in the end, they reflect the overall view of their lot, and the reflection of the society in them.
former supereme court chief justice john marshal, does not have jack shit authority in regard to political history, for these already have happened, and political science, for he is not a scientist.
some random partial judge making out concepts out of his own ass because of his political views and willful ignorance of political science, does not change science.
syria calling itself a republic does not make it a republic. even if there is an assembly there, the parties, candidates, are still rigged/controlled. yet, technically, it fulfills the requirements of a democracy on the outside.
ooooh. shift key. i now see that all my worries about the planet, knowledge, horizons and foresight, insight, were pointless.
....
SHIFT KEY !!! that is the most prominent thing !! and, capitalization of course !!
how could i not know
quite positive outlook, and ideal. however, the plethora of hilarious patents, still stand till now. why didnt prior art kick in yet ?
of course these are already in use. but, this doesnt prevent parties in usa from patenting them. you forgot the hilarious array of patents that were filed by ibm, microsoft in the last 2-3 years ? most of which were discussed here ?
ok, i attempt to file a patent for something that is basic but fundamental to the workings of the modern society, but patentable.
im first to file. what happens ?
switzerland is a republic. most of the laws are decided by direct referandum. citizens, individually, can create bills and start referandums and get them accepted.
you will soon see bastards attempting AND succeeding to patent very basic mechanics of the machinery and systems that run modern society.
just one thinks that we have hit the rock bottom of the pit that is capitalism, now we are really at a point of allowing ownership of basic logic. way to go.
quite. it was still decentralized tho, it was a federal republic in which different states had their own assembly and decision making power to varying degrees.
The reason you're stupid is that you just take it for granted that removing privacy would somehow cause people to become completely accepting and non-judgmental.
the reason you are a moron is that, you had produced that statement out of your ass yourself. nowhere in any prior messages, such a recipe was given by me.
however, it is true that removal of privacy does indeed cause society to become more accepting of commonly occurring phenomenon. most of the stuff that you take as normal oddities these days, had been sins or offenses against society decades ago. its because it has become apparent that people were doing these in numbers that their 'severity' has been reduced in public perception. unfortunately, this even goes true about crime. it is so common in some countries that, people are taking having a small list of criminal offenses in their record as normal.
there is no difference in between them. these morons, and i say morons, not to mormons but to the right wing ignorant circles in usa, utter this word as if it is contrary to centralization. "but this country is a republic !!"
iiiis iiit ? so, france is also a republic. and there are no state rights or states there.
switzerland is also a republic, and the decentralization there is MUCH bigger than the one in usa.
these ignorants seem to think that 'republic'/'democracy' etc have anything to do with centralization/federalization/decentralization.
they do not. you can have fascism, yet it can be decentralized (like in feudal times), you can have a democracy/republic, yet it can be more centralized than anything else.
its all about who does the decision making. elected representatives of people, or else.
its appalling that even here there are fools that have the same misconception - hey, doing a google search and reading a wikipedia article with endless references to political science documents is not that hard ? why not take action now, and dont make out yourself come out as an ignorant bimbo.
its not 'impulse'. its 'safety' buy. 'just in case' buy, or maybe 'thats almost free' buy.
if nothing is secret, homophobes kicking other peoples' asses wont be able to do it in secret too. because its not secret, they wont be able to do that.
if people dont look down on alcoholics, just like how they shouldnt take someone's ass being naked as something that is 'rude', there wont be any need to hide that information either.
,BR> same goes for all your examples.
do i need to remind you that, in engineering and applied sciences in general, depending on context, a number that is close to zero enough, is taken as zero ?
the 'supply/demand' in regard to cost is so irrelevant in this case that, it is at a point of 'nil' in these calculations.
you will need to analyze the situation as 'attractiveness of the product' versus 'the hassle to acquire the product' and so on. not in regard to price. because, it is at a price point at which people are thinking that it is free.
irrelevant.
all the economic theories and their founding principles stem from 18th century. they perceive and keep the basis of that reality.
the fact that someone sitting on its ass in a living room would be able to buy something for a dime and have it delivered instantly to its own living room with almost nonexistent cost, was never a reality at any point in time up till this decade.
econ 101, 102, do not apply anymore. many of the people who are buying that book, actually are not even demanding that book - they are buying it for 'just in case', because its cheap enough to not even care about its cost.
if its good, it will.
Its what other people do with your information.
would you really care if the society didnt have any bias in regard to downloading porn, and found out that you have been downloading porn ? no.
its because society is acting/reacting on that information that you are desiring to have privacy. if nobody cared that your ass was bare or not, you wouldnt hesitate from going about naked. which was the case in early days of mankind. then we developed a bias that says asses should be covered. despite that the ass is still there, hidden, and everybody knows it.
same goes for govt. why would you care if govt. know what you did, if the govt. was not going to do anything bad with that information ? no.
so problem is not hiding what you are doing. problem is out there, in the society and government and so on. (actually govt. is included in society).
solution of this is ultimate transparency. nothing should be hidden, nothing should be judged if it doesnt harm another human being. this also goes for governments. there should be no secrets.
there will remain no need for privacy or secrecy then.