I know many of the governments of the "free world" are guilty of all manners of despicable privacy violations with all manners of awful consequences, but please don't even attempt to compare these issues to the sorts of oppression that happen in full-blown totalitarian regimes.
The "free world" is effective enough at controlling the people though other means (bread and circuses) that it need not resort to more extreme measures: the people are powerless, and so abusing them overtly would only potentially give them something to unite against.
You aren't free only because you can say something, although that is a prerequisite. You're free because you can effect social change. Tell me with a straight face that there is a wide gulf between Iran and the West in that respect, and I shall laugh at you. The West simply learned the hard way not to use the stick every time.
Large storm? It will be a tropical storm by the time it gets there, assuming it doesn't turn away. High probability of being killed? By what, exactly?
Forcing people to evacuate for something that doesn't even qualify as alarming in most of the country is indeed a nanny state. But I can see you're so afraid of your own shadow, you don't mind armed men forcing people into the streets. There are counties you can go to where that is the norm, why don't you try them on for size.
1.) "slightly more?" Are you looking at projections for the coming years, based on his economic policies? Why do you think they were so set on raising the debt limit?
Because we already committed to spending money and hit the debt limit? Only a zero deficit could have averted borrowing money. You do realize there is a difference between deficit and debt, right?
Guess what-- the economy runs in cycles. Bush had to deal with the effects of the dot-com burst and 9/11. Do you really think it's fair to say he inherited "economic booms?"
Bush II go the butt end of the dotcom boom. He decided to then lower taxes to an unsustainable level and spend trillions on unfunded wars. I think it's fair to say he dug his own hole, yes.
Obama is running up a huge unrecoverable deficit that we *can not pay for.* We can't afford it even if we tax the rich into the ground.
Alright. You're the economic genius, I guess; prove it, please. That's an awful extraordinary claim, so you had better have some equally extraordinary proof.
And I'm sure you'll find that a good portions of "teatards" (you're quite mature) do *not* support many of Bush's economic policies.
Yeah. They're not far enough to the right for them. I think that's pretty obvious.
"teatards" (you're quite mature)
Sorry. I should call them what they are: right wing extremists.
I might consider changing my political position as soon as I hear from a conservative that doesn't argue from Fox News-provided logically fallacies, poor statistics, and historical revisionism. Sadly, your post has not brought anything new to the table.
Sweden, the country where anyone can and does get arrested for "sexual assault," which was only made un-consensual after the fact? Where people's servers are stolen even though they violated none of the laws of the country? Yeah, rule of law is strong there...
Have you bothered to look at what Obama has done during his short time in office? It dwarfs what Reagan and the Bushes did.
1. I would hardly call slightly more "dwarfing."
2. Obama actually had an economic downturn to deal with, largely created by Reaganomics. Bailouts, stimulus, etc. Bush and Reagan had huge economic booms, such as the dotcom boom. Yet, still ran a massive deficit.
3. I'm tired of the double standard. Tax and spend is always evil... when it is a democrat doing it. Teatards spend days solid ranting about how immoral and harmful to the economy it is when Obama runs a deficit, and yet completely forgive when Republicans do it, both in the past and present.
Not if you're claiming your invention is the fact the device looks like the aforementioned fictional device. Of course, design patents are unjustified to begin with, but it is even worse in that it is obvious Apple didn't originate the design.
"Coincidence? I think not."
Of course not. There is no such thing as a coincidence. Rather, the technology reached a level as to enable large-scale, affordable production. Apple just got on board at the right time. Your point? Oh, right, fanboism...
If people are evading taxes, the proper response is to put them in prison, not give them a tax break. Similarly, taxes hurt the economy, but so does unregulated banking, subsidies, and bailouts (yes, they do, really). You argue as if any raise in income is physically impossible, which seems to have become a meme among the fascist right. Taxes do not have an immediate or even pronounced effect. They have a slowing effect IF the money is not well spent after it is collected. However, an increase in taxes will always yield a an increase an income, until you get to absurd levels (which pretty much by definition are going to have to be higher than Europe...).
"It's a historical fact. Let me repeat it again: every time they raise taxes, they raise spending even more, so they still will have deficit spending and won't have enough for the telescope."
This is not true*, but for the sake of argument, lets say it was. Doesn't it stand to reason that if spending is lowered, that taxes will be lowered, and the deficit will remain the same? Ah, but that's what you want... the government to not be involved in economic matters. Let the poor fend for themselves. Sorry, we tried that for the last 3 decades, and it got us here. Now is not the time to try to destroy the country with even more of the same failed ideology, it is time to try something new. You are welcome to sit down and shut up.
* Our modern deficit was built by Reagan and the Bushes.
You can have billions in oil and corn subsidies, trillions in arms, but how dare you suggest we actually have a space program on par with countries such as Russia, China, and India...
"And one should certainly rely on the fictional Star Trek(tm) universe for patent guidance... "
You can't have "invented" something if it was in a science fiction TV show decades before your company existed. Unless Steve is actually from the future and used a time machine...
Star Trek's PADDs are almost identical in operation to modern tablets, and across the different shows, came up in every possible kind of design imaginable.
They're basically the same... except an app store is a pay-per-view, less managed/secure, and often less comprehensive version of a repo. Basically, it's a repo that has been corporatized and people have been forced to use.
So, you're claiming that things from app stores are immune from adware, spyware, and annoyware? Hopefully not, because that has been proven a false statement already.
What is perhaps sad, to myself of course, is that that procedure does not sound particularly unreasonable to me. I wish building was as easy on Windows as on Linux, because it can be a good way to ensure you get exactly what you want and the newest version of it. Repos are not always the best option.
There are plenty of countries that DO have blanket legalization of pot, and far from falling to their knees they are doing much much better than the USA is as far as quality of life goes.
Really now. The only one I can think of to legalize it in any meaningful way is the Netherlands, and that is far from blanket legalization. It is still much more restricted than alcohol is in Pennsylvania...
You might also notice that I said legalization of pot might actually be the course of action. It probably should have the same restrictions as alcohol and tobacco, combined, as its side effects are roughly similar. Yes, smoking pot causes cancer.
Banning pot is so painfully obvious it is not for the safety or betterment of mankind, but only the profits our government makes off of it without regard to the lives destroyed while doing so.
Your argument(s) are inconsistent. You just argued that the gains from enforcing prohibition are the reason pot is still illegal, then go on to talk about the costs of it and the possible tax revenue, then back to it somehow making money as it stands. Which is the argument you want to make? Either they're making money now and that is keeping it illegal, OR we're losing money on it and it is illegal for some other reason. Those arguments are mutually exclusive.
I do not believe, if you really did a calculation, that the government makes any money on the current system. Specific parts might gain while others lose (the FBI/Federal Government is definitely losing, and local police are gaining), but we're operating at a huge net loss.
The reason for the prohibition is definitely for the betterment of society. If it actually is doing that is an entirely different matter, and I do not think that in this case, as it stands, it is. However, that is not the sentiment shared by many. The vast majority of people hear pot, and think of stoners, and say "I don't want my kid to be that way." If you want pot to be legal, you need to change the image.
Complaining will go nowhere as long as the stereotype remains generally true. A great example of that I saw just this week. Of the 'causes' submitted to Stephen Colbert's superpac, marijuana was the top... among those who made no donations. Among the people who donated, it was barely a statistical anomaly. You have to be willing to stand by what you say if you want anything to happen.
Frankly, I welcome it. The Apple/Google/Microsoft dueling astroturf was getting a bit old. Something about biology, and which has already developed into a political argument about drugs, is a nice change.
It's not your fucking business, or anybody else's.
Take the goddamn safety labels off of everything, for fucks sake.
I'm not sure how these arguments are related, but I like my "High Voltage" and "Corrosive" labels, thank you very much. Some warnings exist for a reason.
The issue with drugs is that, when legalized in large quantities, they tend to lead to the same situation that happened with opium. That is not good for society as a whole. Alcohol is bad enough, but putting hallucinogens and other drug chemicals into plants that do not naturally have them is a bad thing. At best it makes drugs far too easily availabe, at worst it brings the country to its knees.
Drugs are a complicated issue, as I would like to think that freedom to choose is always best, but the simple fact is that a vast majority of people will abuse the privilege. People still smoke and even choose to start smoking, despite the warnings, despite the taxes, despite all common sense to the contrary.
I have seen the damage that even "weak" drugs can do when they become the center of someone's life. We need to end all the "War on X"s, but blanket legalization is not a good thing. Maybe pot should be legal, but with crack and heroin, that is never going to happen. There needs to be some balance, and as it stands, we're far too much towards the prohibition side. The administrative costs (police, court, prison, appeals, legislation, investigation...), the infringements upon civil rights, and the seriously questionable gain is just too much. However, THC-laced vegetables is far too much towards the stoned-out society side.
Like I said, it's not a simple issue, and trying to make it into one by running around saying "your fucking business" isn't going to convince anyone. That's the kind of attitude that causes pot to be so stigmatized in US politics. Learn civility, it's the only way you'll ever get what you want in life.
That's one case. You're basing your opinion on a whole body of law on one case?
No, and if you did your research, you would know it is one case out of many similar. Some of which were not lost, and all of which had a chilling effect on free speech simply by being filed. Slander/libel laws are censorship, plain and simple.
Why? If I put money & effort into developing my awesome beer and chicken tikka ice-cream, why should I tell you the recipe? So you can steal my business?
Aren't we told almost daily that the purpose of patents are to force those who want legal protection of their inventions to disclose them? Why, then, should we circumvent that with "trade secrets" laws? This is a case of two forms of censorship usurping the fake reasoning behind each other... neither are justified, and yet those who lack critical thinking skills believe each justify the other.
As for the broader issue of "I invented it, it's mine" - no, you didn't. The vast majority of patents are not original ideas, many of them ripped off directly from their actual inventors, and even if a specific patent isn't, every invention depends upon those before it. Thus, the excuses for patents, like copyright, are visibly false and not rooted in either a sound understanding of human nature, or indeed any form of logical reasoning, unless you're one of the few with the money to strong-arm the legal system.
I personally know someone who got an injunction to prevent publication of some illegally obtained information about him. You don't know about it, because (duh) that's the whole point.
Good for you. Let me know when those laws start to be applied to the mass media, corporations, or the government, in any meaningful way.
Now, let's say that I point at you with a loaded gun, threaten to shoot you but then "pussy out" before actually pulling the trigger. Do you think that this should be completely legal and I shouldn't be punished in any way if I don't actually pull the trigger?
Uhh... pointing a gun at someone, while threatening to shoot them or not, is quite different than threatening someone on facebook. I am amazed anyone could fail to see the difference, so I can only assume you're willfully ignorant of it. I don't think that after that I need to justify the rest of your argument with a reply.
As much as the US might be an acceptable target, the hyperbole about it in this case is totally false. The worst racist organization we have had in recent times was the KKK, which has all but disappeared. There is a racist/fascist undercurrent in the Tea Party, but even they try to not be openly racist. Meanwhile, I know for a fact both Germany and Britain have large, vocal, and growing racist subcultures, which have committed violence. So while I can't speak for all countries, I do know the US is not the worst of them. It also stands as perfect proof that banning something doesn't make it go away.
No, I am not one of them. I am extremely anti-fascist, as you could clearly see by all my other posts on the matter. That is exactly why I am anti-censorship as a rule. I am sorry if that's confusing to you, but the fallacy of "you protect their rights, so you must be one of them" is exactly how fascism always starts.
Also, I will point out that it is not a reality here in the United States. We have a relatively strong freedom of speech that all colleges must respect. And, lo and behold, we actually have less problems with right-wing fanatics here than in most countries that ban "hate literature," even though we're as a whole much more to the right than Europe. That might make some people wonder if that knee-jerk censorship is doing any good.
Slashdot Mirror
The "free world" is effective enough at controlling the people though other means (bread and circuses) that it need not resort to more extreme measures: the people are powerless, and so abusing them overtly would only potentially give them something to unite against.
You aren't free only because you can say something, although that is a prerequisite. You're free because you can effect social change. Tell me with a straight face that there is a wide gulf between Iran and the West in that respect, and I shall laugh at you. The West simply learned the hard way not to use the stick every time.
Well, most are uninhabited.
Having no problem with selling things that have been opened and modified as "new" is exactly why libertarianism is bull.
Large storm? It will be a tropical storm by the time it gets there, assuming it doesn't turn away. High probability of being killed? By what, exactly?
Forcing people to evacuate for something that doesn't even qualify as alarming in most of the country is indeed a nanny state. But I can see you're so afraid of your own shadow, you don't mind armed men forcing people into the streets. There are counties you can go to where that is the norm, why don't you try them on for size.
Because we already committed to spending money and hit the debt limit? Only a zero deficit could have averted borrowing money. You do realize there is a difference between deficit and debt, right?
Bush II go the butt end of the dotcom boom. He decided to then lower taxes to an unsustainable level and spend trillions on unfunded wars. I think it's fair to say he dug his own hole, yes.
Alright. You're the economic genius, I guess; prove it, please. That's an awful extraordinary claim, so you had better have some equally extraordinary proof.
Yeah. They're not far enough to the right for them. I think that's pretty obvious.
Sorry. I should call them what they are: right wing extremists.
I might consider changing my political position as soon as I hear from a conservative that doesn't argue from Fox News-provided logically fallacies, poor statistics, and historical revisionism. Sadly, your post has not brought anything new to the table.
As sad as it is, the US is becoming good in comparison. Let us not forget France's three strikes law.
We're quickly nearing a need to have our own version of the Arab Spring, to establish some governments that respect technological freedom.
I often wonder if the image of communism would be different if it didn't only occur in countries that were falling apart to begin with.
Sweden, the country where anyone can and does get arrested for "sexual assault," which was only made un-consensual after the fact? Where people's servers are stolen even though they violated none of the laws of the country? Yeah, rule of law is strong there...
1. I would hardly call slightly more "dwarfing."
2. Obama actually had an economic downturn to deal with, largely created by Reaganomics. Bailouts, stimulus, etc. Bush and Reagan had huge economic booms, such as the dotcom boom. Yet, still ran a massive deficit.
3. I'm tired of the double standard. Tax and spend is always evil... when it is a democrat doing it. Teatards spend days solid ranting about how immoral and harmful to the economy it is when Obama runs a deficit, and yet completely forgive when Republicans do it, both in the past and present.
"Of course you can."
Not if you're claiming your invention is the fact the device looks like the aforementioned fictional device. Of course, design patents are unjustified to begin with, but it is even worse in that it is obvious Apple didn't originate the design.
"Coincidence? I think not."
Of course not. There is no such thing as a coincidence. Rather, the technology reached a level as to enable large-scale, affordable production. Apple just got on board at the right time. Your point? Oh, right, fanboism...
Your reasoning is fictitious.
If people are evading taxes, the proper response is to put them in prison, not give them a tax break. Similarly, taxes hurt the economy, but so does unregulated banking, subsidies, and bailouts (yes, they do, really). You argue as if any raise in income is physically impossible, which seems to have become a meme among the fascist right. Taxes do not have an immediate or even pronounced effect. They have a slowing effect IF the money is not well spent after it is collected. However, an increase in taxes will always yield a an increase an income, until you get to absurd levels (which pretty much by definition are going to have to be higher than Europe...).
"It's a historical fact. Let me repeat it again: every time they raise taxes, they raise spending even more, so they still will have deficit spending and won't have enough for the telescope."
This is not true*, but for the sake of argument, lets say it was. Doesn't it stand to reason that if spending is lowered, that taxes will be lowered, and the deficit will remain the same? Ah, but that's what you want... the government to not be involved in economic matters. Let the poor fend for themselves. Sorry, we tried that for the last 3 decades, and it got us here. Now is not the time to try to destroy the country with even more of the same failed ideology, it is time to try something new. You are welcome to sit down and shut up.
* Our modern deficit was built by Reagan and the Bushes.
You can have billions in oil and corn subsidies, trillions in arms, but how dare you suggest we actually have a space program on par with countries such as Russia, China, and India...
"And one should certainly rely on the fictional Star Trek(tm) universe for patent guidance... "
You can't have "invented" something if it was in a science fiction TV show decades before your company existed. Unless Steve is actually from the future and used a time machine...
Star Trek's PADDs are almost identical in operation to modern tablets, and across the different shows, came up in every possible kind of design imaginable.
They're basically the same... except an app store is a pay-per-view, less managed/secure, and often less comprehensive version of a repo. Basically, it's a repo that has been corporatized and people have been forced to use.
So, you're claiming that things from app stores are immune from adware, spyware, and annoyware? Hopefully not, because that has been proven a false statement already.
What is perhaps sad, to myself of course, is that that procedure does not sound particularly unreasonable to me. I wish building was as easy on Windows as on Linux, because it can be a good way to ensure you get exactly what you want and the newest version of it. Repos are not always the best option.
Really now. The only one I can think of to legalize it in any meaningful way is the Netherlands, and that is far from blanket legalization. It is still much more restricted than alcohol is in Pennsylvania...
You might also notice that I said legalization of pot might actually be the course of action. It probably should have the same restrictions as alcohol and tobacco, combined, as its side effects are roughly similar. Yes, smoking pot causes cancer.
Your argument(s) are inconsistent. You just argued that the gains from enforcing prohibition are the reason pot is still illegal, then go on to talk about the costs of it and the possible tax revenue, then back to it somehow making money as it stands. Which is the argument you want to make? Either they're making money now and that is keeping it illegal, OR we're losing money on it and it is illegal for some other reason. Those arguments are mutually exclusive.
I do not believe, if you really did a calculation, that the government makes any money on the current system. Specific parts might gain while others lose (the FBI/Federal Government is definitely losing, and local police are gaining), but we're operating at a huge net loss.
The reason for the prohibition is definitely for the betterment of society. If it actually is doing that is an entirely different matter, and I do not think that in this case, as it stands, it is. However, that is not the sentiment shared by many. The vast majority of people hear pot, and think of stoners, and say "I don't want my kid to be that way." If you want pot to be legal, you need to change the image.
Complaining will go nowhere as long as the stereotype remains generally true. A great example of that I saw just this week. Of the 'causes' submitted to Stephen Colbert's superpac, marijuana was the top... among those who made no donations. Among the people who donated, it was barely a statistical anomaly. You have to be willing to stand by what you say if you want anything to happen.
Frankly, I welcome it. The Apple/Google/Microsoft dueling astroturf was getting a bit old. Something about biology, and which has already developed into a political argument about drugs, is a nice change.
I'm not sure how these arguments are related, but I like my "High Voltage" and "Corrosive" labels, thank you very much. Some warnings exist for a reason.
The issue with drugs is that, when legalized in large quantities, they tend to lead to the same situation that happened with opium. That is not good for society as a whole. Alcohol is bad enough, but putting hallucinogens and other drug chemicals into plants that do not naturally have them is a bad thing. At best it makes drugs far too easily availabe, at worst it brings the country to its knees.
Drugs are a complicated issue, as I would like to think that freedom to choose is always best, but the simple fact is that a vast majority of people will abuse the privilege. People still smoke and even choose to start smoking, despite the warnings, despite the taxes, despite all common sense to the contrary.
I have seen the damage that even "weak" drugs can do when they become the center of someone's life. We need to end all the "War on X"s, but blanket legalization is not a good thing. Maybe pot should be legal, but with crack and heroin, that is never going to happen. There needs to be some balance, and as it stands, we're far too much towards the prohibition side. The administrative costs (police, court, prison, appeals, legislation, investigation...), the infringements upon civil rights, and the seriously questionable gain is just too much. However, THC-laced vegetables is far too much towards the stoned-out society side.
Like I said, it's not a simple issue, and trying to make it into one by running around saying "your fucking business" isn't going to convince anyone. That's the kind of attitude that causes pot to be so stigmatized in US politics. Learn civility, it's the only way you'll ever get what you want in life.
No, and if you did your research, you would know it is one case out of many similar. Some of which were not lost, and all of which had a chilling effect on free speech simply by being filed. Slander/libel laws are censorship, plain and simple.
Aren't we told almost daily that the purpose of patents are to force those who want legal protection of their inventions to disclose them? Why, then, should we circumvent that with "trade secrets" laws? This is a case of two forms of censorship usurping the fake reasoning behind each other... neither are justified, and yet those who lack critical thinking skills believe each justify the other.
As for the broader issue of "I invented it, it's mine" - no, you didn't. The vast majority of patents are not original ideas, many of them ripped off directly from their actual inventors, and even if a specific patent isn't, every invention depends upon those before it. Thus, the excuses for patents, like copyright, are visibly false and not rooted in either a sound understanding of human nature, or indeed any form of logical reasoning, unless you're one of the few with the money to strong-arm the legal system.
Good for you. Let me know when those laws start to be applied to the mass media, corporations, or the government, in any meaningful way.
Uhh... pointing a gun at someone, while threatening to shoot them or not, is quite different than threatening someone on facebook. I am amazed anyone could fail to see the difference, so I can only assume you're willfully ignorant of it. I don't think that after that I need to justify the rest of your argument with a reply.
Pulling tape off a roll also generates x-rays. Oh my god, tape is deadly!
As much as the US might be an acceptable target, the hyperbole about it in this case is totally false. The worst racist organization we have had in recent times was the KKK, which has all but disappeared. There is a racist/fascist undercurrent in the Tea Party, but even they try to not be openly racist. Meanwhile, I know for a fact both Germany and Britain have large, vocal, and growing racist subcultures, which have committed violence. So while I can't speak for all countries, I do know the US is not the worst of them. It also stands as perfect proof that banning something doesn't make it go away.
No, I am not one of them. I am extremely anti-fascist, as you could clearly see by all my other posts on the matter. That is exactly why I am anti-censorship as a rule. I am sorry if that's confusing to you, but the fallacy of "you protect their rights, so you must be one of them" is exactly how fascism always starts.
Also, I will point out that it is not a reality here in the United States. We have a relatively strong freedom of speech that all colleges must respect. And, lo and behold, we actually have less problems with right-wing fanatics here than in most countries that ban "hate literature," even though we're as a whole much more to the right than Europe. That might make some people wonder if that knee-jerk censorship is doing any good.