I cite the 1st amendment in respect to displaying the posts while turning over the IPs of the perps.
That may (or may not) work legally, but any domain name registrar or host will shut down your site without a second thought. I registered with Russia for a reason. As for nearlyfreespeech.net, again, they only follow US law and that's it. |
|
|
|
No censorship. None.
Say that again after someone posts some child pornography photos. You need some kind of censorship in extreme cases Not possible. I have images turned off. If somebody links to CP, the hosting server will be the perp. WHAT IF SOME TERRORISTS PLAN TO BOMB SOMETHING I cite the 1st amendment in respect to displaying the posts while turning over the IPs of the perps. I guess my idea won't work, eh? ~Bruno~ Your idea is called Usenet. |
|
|
|
No censorship. None.
Say that again after someone posts some child pornography photos. You need some kind of censorship in extreme cases Not possible. I have images turned off. If somebody links to CP, the hosting server will be the perp. WHAT IF SOME TERRORISTS PLAN TO BOMB SOMETHING I cite the 1st amendment in respect to displaying the posts while turning over the IPs of the perps. |
|
|
|
No censorship. None.
Say that again after someone posts some child pornography photos. You need some kind of censorship in extreme cases Not possible. I have images turned off. If somebody links to CP, the hosting server will be the perp. |
|
|
|
|
Expect brief downtime in the next hour or so.
|
|
|
|
I have a theory and it may prove to be bunk. We'll see what happens to my board all in good time. All this is an experiment. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Additionally, http://nearlyfreespeech.net is quite lenient. Any threats will be properly reported to the powers that be. |
|
|
|
|
Despite somebody dissing Matthew and making a thread about penises, I will not be deleting them.
No censorship. None.
|
|
|
|
http://bitkoin.suIf it gets popular, I'll maintain it and add more boards. For now, there will be one Bitcoin board. Enjoy.
|
|
|
|
So they finish this sometime in 2013... Should be plenty of time to scramble together a few nuclear bombs to wipe the place off the fucking map just as they put the finishing touches on it. Anyone in for some fun?
DISCLAIMER: I'm drunk, so don't take me seriously.
Fabulous work, rjk. You just got every person in this thread on a domestic terrorist watchlist. See you in indefinite detention. |
|
|
|
these guys have done plenty of business around here and it all appears very above board. yeh theres delays, its not the end of the world. its a magazine not a car. maybe at some point those loyal first batch of customers who understood the trouble for starting *any* business will get a free issue or that sometime down the line. Not putting words in their mouth of anything xP
What's that? I think I just heard Matthew say free issues all around. |
|
|
|
|
Matthew has already been convicted as a scammer. You accepted the likely chance of not receiving your product from the start(!)
I'm just bustin' chops.
|
|
|
|
|
I'll do this only because I want to.
No reward needed.
|
|
|
|
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/From this article, it's clear the main goal of the newest datacenter in NSA's line is to crack high-level encryption. The hardware that will be in this is unclear. What is clear is that the budget for this monstrosity is over $2 billion; more than enough monetary power to bring Bitcoin to hell and back. Stay aware.
|
|
|
|
Yup, raise awareness and do nothing about it is the way to go...
We all see how well that worked/works on Africas' problems. lol <--- Case in point: For the last 25 years I've been aware of them, yet they have the same problems today they had 25 years ago, some of them got even worse despite so many campaigns to raise awareness.
But I digress. You are right after all. I was just venting. It's nothing personal, so, please don't take it as such.
The Africa point is moot. People are aware of it but are going about it the wrong way. African culture has degenerated to the point to where work is considered to be only fit for women while men live on permanent aid. |
|
|
|
It's because that working too much lower the value of the work you create. Only stupid/short-term/badly managed business are happy to overwork their employees regularly.
Having free time to think, study, discover and experiment helps you grow as a person. The more you are developed physically and mentally, the better you can add value to your work. If your persona stay small and undeveloped, yeah, you can work more hours, but these hours have less value for you over time.
A business owner who works its employees for 60 hours every week will make his profit with the difference between the output of his employees work, and the value as a human being of those employees. If your t-shirt is made in China, it's because the human being there have less value than the human being here. So, they're paid accordingly, and business owners profit from the difference.
A great business owner will let his employees grow their persona, so he can profit from the high value work those employees produce. Sure, those guys cost more, but they output more value in return.
The dogma of "you need to work hard" is half-crap created by factory managers who want to get the more juice they can from employees until they're dried enough to get fired. It's missing the part where you need to think before you work. Think, envision, plan and when you're ready, you go work hard. You stop, evaluate your work, rethink it, try something new, and you start working hard again. If somebody is doing the thinking part for you, you're not better than a slave with good living conditions.
Don't forget where "Arbeit Macht Frei" was written and for who.
Who defines a great business? |
|
|
|
I don't know how you could stop people from doing so -- short of slavery. The "right" to unionize is inherent.
What isn't, is the "right" to force people into unions in addition to forcing all people to support the unions through government force. That is not something I agree with.
If people wish to compete with union labor for lower wages, I believe they should do so.
So it is OK for people to assemble to threaten their employeer with not working if the employer refuses to pay the whole group 1.5 times pay for working over 40 hours a week, but the workers cannot threaten to stop working if the employer does not agree to only hire people that join the workers group? Who is going to enforce your rule? Oh, they can threaten to stop working but they will likely get a pink slip because if their terms are too high, the employer would get nothing out of only hiring union workers. The individual, self-interest enforces my ideal rule. If individuals desire to work for less, in addition to being more numerous than union labor, why should they be denied employment? Why should they be denied a situation better than they have now because fewer union workers desire a higher wage? |
|
|
|
I find it much easier to believe that programmers were working for a rational reason then I do that so many programmers were irrational. It's very easy to think that you know what's good for someone better than they do, but you're almost always wrong. Easier to believe != always right  Plus, I am not implying that I think I know these people. I supported my opinion with some evidence that: * many dying people regret their decision to work so much * many programmers, despite being smart and in quite high demand, succumb to lifestyle that severely hurts their families, without getting anything tangible in return (so much for rationality, eh?). You did not say a word whether you agree with these facts, or what do you think about them... So, should somebody make the decision on how to run their lives for them? You know what's better for these people? Should they be parented? |
|
|
|
|
I made the mistake of not booking a hotel.
I wish I could go but it's difficult trying to justify a one day trip and back for my family and I. I am getting my license next week. Not the best timing. : \
Anyways, I hope all of you have a great time. I can't wait to hear (or see) what happens.
|
|
|
|
It's my first time entering the workforce and it seems finding work that exceeds 40 hours a week is hard.
Why? Because the state feels it's necessary to mandate employers by force to pay 1.5 times the wage for every hour worked overtime.
Fuck this. If I want to offer labor for more than 40 hours per week, it's my damn right. It's my labor.
Be thankful that overtime is time and a half. You have no idea. The whole thing you're missing is without time and a half as a disincentive for the employer to work you more than 40 hours a week, they'd walk all over you if you didn't work 60 hours a week and fire your ass if it happened to be inconvenient for you. I see no problem with this. I will not thank the state for coercing businesses and individuals. Some people have families to feed and they need to work more hours. When stores can't afford to, it can be a problem. That's my point. You're in competition with people who can outwork you like you can't believe. You probably can't keep up with them. They just work and sleep. If not for time and half, the business would fire you because you finally get tired of 70 hour weeks. I don't have the right to a job from a business that caters to and prefers hardworkers. Why should I deny a more efficient and harder worker more hours and a business better gains for those hours? Do you think people have a right to get together with other workers and refuse to work unless they are paid 1.5 times more for working over 40 hours a week? I don't know how you could stop people from doing so -- short of slavery. The "right" to unionize is inherent. What isn't, is the "right" to force people into unions in addition to forcing all people to support the unions through government force. That is not something I agree with. If people wish to compete with union labor for lower wages, I believe they should do so. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
