My, my, my, the "realist" says to "keep the status quo" because to do otherwise would "accomplish totally undefined disaster". And we wonder why things keep getting worse. Can't let the "radicals" initiate change, no, much better to keep gunning it for the cliff.
Also, nice job totally ignoring third parties, and failing to recognize rampant corruption in the two major ones, apparently only for the sake of being "optimistic" (is choosing the method of execution rather than choosing not to be executed really the opposite of cynicism).
He obviously didn't try that hard, as we are still there. He IS commander and chief. He could bring them all back with the stroke of a pen if he wanted to. But he doesn't. Too profitable.
Anyone that thinks he is any different from Republicans is fooling themselves. Any and all "mainstream" candidates are exactly the same, and are all bought and paid for by the same monied interests. If you want real leadership, then you have to look to those who have proven themselves to be unbuyable. Dennis Kucinich for the liberals, and Ron Paul for the (true) conservatives. I would be happy to have either as President, because they can be counted on to do what they think is best for the people, not what is best for their donors.
More likely what will happen is the government will manipulate the "science" to its own ends. We have already seen this happen. Making "science" the be-all end-all will just make it worse.
Trade secrets are a more viable form of protection than patents. Take it from someone who is part of a company that has fought off patent challenges from small companies, but not from large ones--with patents, money is all that matters. A team of high powered patent lawyers will kill even a perfectly written patent that is defended by a rinky-dink lawyer, much less a self represented person. If a company can steal a good idea, they will try. Know how and show how are the only things stopping them, and you don't give those away until you have a paycheck in hand.
Exactly. Easy things don't deserve protection. Why should someone be entitled to make a bunch of money off of an easy idea? Know-how and show-how are the best means of profiting from new technologies. If someone can reverse engineer some elegant solution to a problem, then good for them. We don't need the government allowing shit like this to happen.
This is fascism, plain and simple (merger of government and corporate power). The government has no business "protecting" people's ideas. Sadly, this is a form of fascism that was enshrined into law by the founders, who apparently feared a full implementation of their ideology to governance. It is clear that patents no longer promote the general welfare, if they ever did. Time to scrap them.
You do realize that nothing was ever taken to court, so nothing is proven in the eyes of the law, right? Killing this man outside of the law, as evil as he may be in reality, has also in reality opened the door to killing ANYONE at ANYTIME for ANY REASON, or no reason at all.
You do know that sheets of graphene can be stacked, and that stacking them increases their strength thanks to aptly named stacking forces that act between parallel aromatic systems? It isn't limited to a single flat sheet.
Your thinking is exactly backwards. In fact, farmers, who composed the vast majority of the population, HAD TO HAVE large families to help tend the farm and bring in the harvest.
If having sex and making babies early was actually a problem, then natural selection would have made it it disappear rather quickly. But the fact is that life was short, and breeding had to be accomplished before 20, and lots and lots of children were needed, otherwise when the plague of the day came through, it would be quite likely for your line to die out.
Less incompetent, and more vicious, cruel, and evil. The prosecutors could choose not to prosecute cases between teens, but they do, and with gusto, because it helps their careers.
Yes, that's right. Anyone who disagrees with you is a terrorist. Nevermind that the underwear bomb was hopelessly ill conceived, or that the Times Square "bomb" was a bunch of fire crackers next to some propane tanks, or that he simply took credit for Hassan's assault to make himself appear to be more than he was.
You, sir, support the murder of Americans overseas without trial or any form of judicial oversight. That man's "crimes" are UTTERLY IRRELEVANT, because of the simple fact that there was never at any point a forum to discuss them, just the assertion of the military/intelligence complex that he was "dangerous". ANYONE could be designated as such, and be murdered at any time by the same procedure.
But that would never happen here. Surely our government is somehow exceptional, and would always think of the rule of law and the good of its citizens first, and would never abuse such things for personal gain, and would never condemn someone to death as a means to CYA.
Exactly. When you severely oppress ANY people, the deaths of the leaders will do nothing but bring the survivors together, and make confrontation inevitable, and all the more bloody when it comes. The same happened in Ireland, despite numerous deaths in the leadership of the IRA, the same has happened in Israel/Palestine with the deaths of Palestinian leaders, the same happened with the numerous revolts of the Aztecs against the Spanish, French partisans vs the Nazis, etc, etc. A great leader might lead them to victory, but the absence of a leader can't lead them into submission to foreign powers. People just don't like that. All that does is create a powder keg looking for its next spark.
I see, so you are saying that each and every single time that an officer killed someone, it was absolutely justified? Talk about jingoism.
And pardon, you are right, this is not a case of fascism, which is the merger of government and corporate power. Rather, this is an example of absolutism and authoritarianism, both of which are closely associated with fascism, but are separate phenomena.
The problem here is that when the government takes this kind of power, it uses it, and abuses it. They will start using this on narco-terrorists, then "home grown" terrorists, then eco-terrorists, then any kind of terrorist that stands against the state, or even the current political party. This is the DEFINITION of a slippery slope, and this is EXACTLY why we have constitutional protections against this sort of thing. This is exactly the same as disagreeing with what someone says, but defending to the death their right to say it. Now, rather than defending that right, we are FUCKING MURDERING THEM AND ANYONE AROUND THEM WITH HELLFIRE MISSILES.
Is killing a person for speaking out in a politically inconvenient way in a foreign nation fascism in your mind? The fact that you can't tell the difference between someone speaking and someone shooting a weapon speaks volumes to your character. You don't deserve to be an American. You would fit in much better with the slaves of North Korea.
Oh, sorry, I guess I'm being "unAmerican" for not supporting endless, self-sustaining, and self-justifying wars or for being against the arbitrary murder of American citizens for speech, especially given that even with all of the PUBLICALLY AVAILABLE "evidence" against him, prosecutors declined to so much as charge him with anything.
Or we could have refrained from cutting off their oil supply, forcing them to attack and provide the US with an excuse for entering the war, which is what FDR wanted from the get-go.
Ah yes, and here comes the "proof in the form of a mushroom cloud" argument that convinced the US to invade Iraq and kill a third of a million people for illegitimate reasons. Great. Thanks, mass murderer wannabe.
Yes, we are all clear that you want more people murdered by police for any reason they like. In your mind it is fine to trade all liberty for the pretense of safety even as the total number of those killed increases, and the killers inevitably escape justice because they are police and not evil, evil terrorists.
No-one is arguing that the terrorists should have more freedom to operate outside the law. You have now acknowledged that the police are as bad or worse than terrorists. So why are we giving them more power to oppress us?
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, and communism would have worked if only it had been run by angels.
I thought it was the Russian version of a snipe hunt. You know, take those guys out into siberia in the middle of the night and then leave them there.
My, my, my, the "realist" says to "keep the status quo" because to do otherwise would "accomplish totally undefined disaster". And we wonder why things keep getting worse. Can't let the "radicals" initiate change, no, much better to keep gunning it for the cliff.
Also, nice job totally ignoring third parties, and failing to recognize rampant corruption in the two major ones, apparently only for the sake of being "optimistic" (is choosing the method of execution rather than choosing not to be executed really the opposite of cynicism).
He obviously didn't try that hard, as we are still there. He IS commander and chief. He could bring them all back with the stroke of a pen if he wanted to. But he doesn't. Too profitable.
Anyone that thinks he is any different from Republicans is fooling themselves. Any and all "mainstream" candidates are exactly the same, and are all bought and paid for by the same monied interests. If you want real leadership, then you have to look to those who have proven themselves to be unbuyable. Dennis Kucinich for the liberals, and Ron Paul for the (true) conservatives. I would be happy to have either as President, because they can be counted on to do what they think is best for the people, not what is best for their donors.
Trollmods are awesome.
More likely what will happen is the government will manipulate the "science" to its own ends. We have already seen this happen. Making "science" the be-all end-all will just make it worse.
Trade secrets are a more viable form of protection than patents. Take it from someone who is part of a company that has fought off patent challenges from small companies, but not from large ones--with patents, money is all that matters. A team of high powered patent lawyers will kill even a perfectly written patent that is defended by a rinky-dink lawyer, much less a self represented person. If a company can steal a good idea, they will try. Know how and show how are the only things stopping them, and you don't give those away until you have a paycheck in hand.
Exactly. Easy things don't deserve protection. Why should someone be entitled to make a bunch of money off of an easy idea? Know-how and show-how are the best means of profiting from new technologies. If someone can reverse engineer some elegant solution to a problem, then good for them. We don't need the government allowing shit like this to happen.
This is fascism, plain and simple (merger of government and corporate power). The government has no business "protecting" people's ideas. Sadly, this is a form of fascism that was enshrined into law by the founders, who apparently feared a full implementation of their ideology to governance. It is clear that patents no longer promote the general welfare, if they ever did. Time to scrap them.
You do realize that nothing was ever taken to court, so nothing is proven in the eyes of the law, right? Killing this man outside of the law, as evil as he may be in reality, has also in reality opened the door to killing ANYONE at ANYTIME for ANY REASON, or no reason at all.
I hope you are proud of yourself, American slave.
You do know that sheets of graphene can be stacked, and that stacking them increases their strength thanks to aptly named stacking forces that act between parallel aromatic systems? It isn't limited to a single flat sheet.
I wonder if the rest of the cave paintings were done by children as well? Perhaps that is why they look so "primitive".
Your thinking is exactly backwards. In fact, farmers, who composed the vast majority of the population, HAD TO HAVE large families to help tend the farm and bring in the harvest.
If having sex and making babies early was actually a problem, then natural selection would have made it it disappear rather quickly. But the fact is that life was short, and breeding had to be accomplished before 20, and lots and lots of children were needed, otherwise when the plague of the day came through, it would be quite likely for your line to die out.
Minor? The third picture constitutes a felony! You could breach that limit in a few minutes!
Less incompetent, and more vicious, cruel, and evil. The prosecutors could choose not to prosecute cases between teens, but they do, and with gusto, because it helps their careers.
Yes, that's right. Anyone who disagrees with you is a terrorist. Nevermind that the underwear bomb was hopelessly ill conceived, or that the Times Square "bomb" was a bunch of fire crackers next to some propane tanks, or that he simply took credit for Hassan's assault to make himself appear to be more than he was.
You, sir, support the murder of Americans overseas without trial or any form of judicial oversight. That man's "crimes" are UTTERLY IRRELEVANT, because of the simple fact that there was never at any point a forum to discuss them, just the assertion of the military/intelligence complex that he was "dangerous". ANYONE could be designated as such, and be murdered at any time by the same procedure.
But that would never happen here. Surely our government is somehow exceptional, and would always think of the rule of law and the good of its citizens first, and would never abuse such things for personal gain, and would never condemn someone to death as a means to CYA.
Exactly. When you severely oppress ANY people, the deaths of the leaders will do nothing but bring the survivors together, and make confrontation inevitable, and all the more bloody when it comes. The same happened in Ireland, despite numerous deaths in the leadership of the IRA, the same has happened in Israel/Palestine with the deaths of Palestinian leaders, the same happened with the numerous revolts of the Aztecs against the Spanish, French partisans vs the Nazis, etc, etc. A great leader might lead them to victory, but the absence of a leader can't lead them into submission to foreign powers. People just don't like that. All that does is create a powder keg looking for its next spark.
I see, so first they came for the Jihadis, and you did not speak out, because you were not a Jihadi.
I wonder how many more will be exterminated with your implicit approval before they come for you?
http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10007392
I see, so you are saying that each and every single time that an officer killed someone, it was absolutely justified? Talk about jingoism.
And pardon, you are right, this is not a case of fascism, which is the merger of government and corporate power. Rather, this is an example of absolutism and authoritarianism, both of which are closely associated with fascism, but are separate phenomena.
The problem here is that when the government takes this kind of power, it uses it, and abuses it. They will start using this on narco-terrorists, then "home grown" terrorists, then eco-terrorists, then any kind of terrorist that stands against the state, or even the current political party. This is the DEFINITION of a slippery slope, and this is EXACTLY why we have constitutional protections against this sort of thing. This is exactly the same as disagreeing with what someone says, but defending to the death their right to say it. Now, rather than defending that right, we are FUCKING MURDERING THEM AND ANYONE AROUND THEM WITH HELLFIRE MISSILES.
Is killing a person for speaking out in a politically inconvenient way in a foreign nation fascism in your mind? The fact that you can't tell the difference between someone speaking and someone shooting a weapon speaks volumes to your character. You don't deserve to be an American. You would fit in much better with the slaves of North Korea.
Oh, sorry, I guess I'm being "unAmerican" for not supporting endless, self-sustaining, and self-justifying wars or for being against the arbitrary murder of American citizens for speech, especially given that even with all of the PUBLICALLY AVAILABLE "evidence" against him, prosecutors declined to so much as charge him with anything.
Ah, patriotism, the first refuge of the scoundrel.
You would make a great recruit for the jackboots. Nice, unquestioning, and unable to gauge relative risk.
In some minds, perhaps. But that line gets fuzzier every time I look at it. It seems non-existent for Muslims at this point.
Or we could have refrained from cutting off their oil supply, forcing them to attack and provide the US with an excuse for entering the war, which is what FDR wanted from the get-go.
Ah yes, and here comes the "proof in the form of a mushroom cloud" argument that convinced the US to invade Iraq and kill a third of a million people for illegitimate reasons. Great. Thanks, mass murderer wannabe.
Yes, we are all clear that you want more people murdered by police for any reason they like. In your mind it is fine to trade all liberty for the pretense of safety even as the total number of those killed increases, and the killers inevitably escape justice because they are police and not evil, evil terrorists.
No-one is arguing that the terrorists should have more freedom to operate outside the law. You have now acknowledged that the police are as bad or worse than terrorists. So why are we giving them more power to oppress us?