Bitcoin Forum
June 24, 2024, 12:10:27 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 27.0 [Torrent]
 
  Home Help Search Login Register More  
  Show Posts
Pages: « 1 ... 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 [183] 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 »
3641  Other / Politics & Society / Re: “We’re Obligated To Use Our Freedom Of Speech To Condemn Insults” To Islam…" on: February 06, 2015, 04:01:08 PM
And if, in fact, we defend the legal right of a person to insult another’s religion, we’re equally obligated to use our free speech to condemn such insults

I don't get what the point is here? People are free to insult religions and people are free to condemn them? Isn't that their choice and all part of freedom of speech?

I should think so. He seems to be conflating two unrelated things to me. One is the legal right to freedom of speech, the other is a subjective judgment on what that freedom of speech should be used for. In saying that if we use free speech we are obligated to condemn those who insult another's beliefs, he's asking for conformity of values. While I agree insults to another's beliefs are unnecessary, I also believe conformity of values is impossible. While he's asking for conformity of values (to his values), people who hate Islam are wondering the same thing: why won't he conform to our values?

The only thing I can say with certainty is that there ought to be freedom of speech, and there are no inherent obligations that come with it.
3642  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why Arming the Ukrainians is a Bad Idea on: February 05, 2015, 10:49:04 PM
It's funny you talk about western propaganda while using language like this:

what Kiev-nazis do with US support is in effect an ethnic cleansing.

Amidst the other Russian propaganda in your post. You have no credibility to talk about propaganda when your own posts are so full of it.

It's not called propaganda, it's called stating the obvious, stating the facts. And I don't need to post any kind of propaganda at all - I make do sticking to verifiable truth.

For the quote above, that you designate as propaganda, please study the following articles:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-u-s-has-installed-a-neo-nazi-government-in-ukraine
http://fortruss.blogspot.com.es/2015/02/ukraine-we-target-civilians-separatists.html

In conjunction they factually cover my statement pretty well.

But once we are on the topic of propaganda, can you, please, point out exactly the other cases of it in my post - you sound as if it's full of it.

Two references to Kiev-Nazis, loaded term ethnic cleansing, referring to anything you don't agree with as western propaganda, spinning of Russian actions in Ukraine as solely humanitarian, yada yada. None of these are facts, it's all propaganda. Your post is absolutely rife with it.
3643  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Interest on Debt to Surpass Defense, NonDefense Discretionary Spending - US on: February 05, 2015, 08:26:56 PM
I know I have read that if America went with the cuts via sequestration, then America would suffer short-term, benefit long-term, but if the sequestration cuts was rolled back, long-term it's going to affect everyone for the worse.
Does anyone have any forecast based on facts, exactly how this will affect us?
All I know is, if you spend all your money on debt/interest, then you have none for anything else..

This is it.

If the US accepted the reality that a few years of lean spending would allow the debt to be brought under control and would benefit the country for the very long term. The President who could do that would be seen (after many years) as a hero, a father of the country.

Unfortunately most of today's politicians only care about themselves and what their "work" impacts today.

Absolutely. Being viewed as a hero 30 years from now as 0 value for your reelection campaign in 2 or 4 years.
3644  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Bitcoin as a Driver for Free Energy on: February 05, 2015, 08:22:50 PM


The following is an article I wrote that argues how free energy devices might be developed more quickly now thanks to Bitcoin. I'm hoping to forward these ideas in some way. I hope it's a shared interest in this community as well


I see your point, but the bitcoin itself is insane dump on energy resourses (@ time of writing Network power consumption
2513.31 MW) , and as such its hardly driver for free energy.
Wouldn't some POS coin be more optimal choice?


Network power consumption, compared to facebook's, google's, apple's, the pentagon's, and all the ATM machines around the globe being used 24/7? How about those millions of tons of soil being moved everyday for rare earth elements for smartphones, then shipped into containers around a global physical network?

Insane indeed.






Free energy is supposed to take electricity from static in the air. So how much of it getting consumed by the network afterwards probably won't be a concern like it is with burning oil or coal.

There's no such thing as free energy. If someone invents a machine that creates energy from the static in the air (assuming this is even possible and viable), he has created a machine with value. Why would he give it away for free? He would either sell the machine or more likely license the technology or sell the power. Similarly, the sun blankets us with "free energy" but unless you can manufacture solar panels, you're going to need to buy them from someone who can. And those people are going to sell the panels to you or sign you to a PPA (power purchase agreement) to provide you with the energy for a price, not give it to you for free. So there will never be free energy, because energy has value, and the people who can produce it or the means to harness it will never be interested in giving it away for free, because that makes no economic sense at all.
3645  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Senator Ted Cruz Unveils Obamacare Repeal Act on: February 05, 2015, 08:15:05 PM
So you're a supporter of the repeal?

Not necessarily. I was opposed to the passage of the bill, and I'm opposed to the concept that the government can force you to buy something you don't want to buy. There is though a question in my mind as to whether health care is truly a special case which necessitates everyone's mandatory involvement. (I haven't definitely answered that question yet for myself.) But repeal now will create chaos, and it's doubtful democrats would let the issue die there and would attempt again, which will further extend the chaos. I was more speaking from a sense of interest as to whether republicans will make a meaningful attempt at repeal when they have the votes to actually do it. When they didn't have the votes, it was all for theater ahead of the midterm elections. Now there will be actual consequences for attempting to repeal, and I'm not sure they will want to risk control of both houses over it. But I'm certainly watching because the strategy of why they act interests me, if not the actual repealing of the law itself.
3646  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Saudi Arabia Holds All Male Women’s Rights Conference on: February 05, 2015, 06:39:40 PM
The same can be said about Christianity, it always staggers me how otherwise nice people can believe in this kind of bullshit, I know having this kind of attitude pisses off religious people but it does baffle me, the least you could do is form your own religion without all this crap, I'd support such a move, I couldn't care if people worship the flying spaghetti monster as long as it was done peacefully but when you try to use an invisible unproven god to justify murder and the orpression of other people you're just lunatics.

Take out the parts of killing infidels, homosexuality being a sin and the treatment of women and all the other crap that goes against common knowledge then we have a deal on a new religion.

Basically, secular humanism? Or as I call it, atheism. 
3647  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Interest on Debt to Surpass Defense, NonDefense Discretionary Spending - US on: February 05, 2015, 05:25:25 PM
Quote
By 2021, the government will be spending more on interest than on all national defense.

Clearly we can't let this happen. We must spend more on defense to prevent interest on the debt from being the largest government expenditure!
3648  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Saudi Arabia Holds All Male Women’s Rights Conference on: February 05, 2015, 05:22:02 PM
As usual this is a great sign for religious people everywhere to show how 'tolerant' they are, I believe Catholics pulled the same kind of bullshit awhile back, this kind of double standard bullshit is why I get so pissed off even at people that claim they don't have a problem with gays, why do otherwise nice people support these total assholes?

And yes, by not denouncing them and calling them the hypocrites they are, you do pretty much give these guys credibility.

The catholics were really enlighted on womens rights. As early as the sixth century the bishops voted in favor of yes in the debate about "Are Women Human?" (32 yes and 31 no) Cheesy.

Well, you know what they say, Behind every great woman, is a man who didn't kill her because he decided she was human after all.
3649  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Silk Road Mastermind Ross Ulbricht Convicted of All 7 Charges on: February 04, 2015, 10:48:03 PM
The judge had stacked the rules against him from the get-go so it was inevitable in my mind that he'd get convicted of something, if not the whole bag. If my back was against the wall like this and knew how things were going, I'd definitely take a chance and hop on the stand to defend myself. Can't do any worse at that point.

What do you mean by the judge stacking the deck against him? I only marginally followed the court case, it was obvious he was guilty so there was no need to follow it closely. Are you referring to the judge disallowing his "expert" witnesses, or was there other conduct?
3650  Other / Politics & Society / Silk Road Mastermind Ross Ulbricht Convicted of All 7 Charges on: February 04, 2015, 10:05:22 PM
Silk Road Mastermind Ross Ulbricht Convicted of All 7 Charges

A jury has spoken, and the mask is off: Ross Ulbricht has been convicted of being the Dread Pirate Roberts, secret mastermind of the Silk Road online narcotics empire.

On Wednesday, less than a month after his trial began in a downtown Manhattan courtroom, 30-year-old Ulbricht was convicted of all seven crimes he was charged with, including narcotics and money laundering conspiracies and a “kingpin” charge usually reserved for mafia dons and drug cartel leaders. It took the jury only 3.5 hours to return a verdict. Ulbricht faces a minimum of 30 years in prison; the maximum is life. But Ulbricht’s legal team has said it will appeal the decision, and cited its frequent calls for a mistrial and protests against the judge’s decisions throughout the case.

Full article available: http://www.wired.com/2015/02/silk-road-ross-ulbricht-verdict/

From Popehat (https://www.popehat.com/2013/10/02/the-silk-road-to-federal-prosecution-the-charges-against-ross-ulbricht/), here is the list of charges against Ulbricht.

The New York complaint charges Ulbricht with three crimes:

1. A conspiracy to traffic in narcotics in violation of Title 21, United States Code, section 846. That charge requires proof that (1) that two or more persons agreed to distribute drugs in violation of federal law, and (2) the defendant knew of the agreement, and (3) the defendant intentionally joined the agreement.

2. A "computer hacking conspiracy" in violation of Title 18, United States Code, section 1030(a)(2).2 That charge requires proof that (1) there was an agreement intentionally to access a "protected computer"3 without authorization or in excess of authorization and get information from the "protected computer," (2) the defendant knew about the agreement, (3) the defendant intentionally joined the agreement, (4) somebody committed an "overt act" — some affirmative step — in support of the agreement.4

3. A conspiracy to launder money in violation of Title 18, United States Code, sections 1956(a)(1)(A)(i) and (a)(1)(B)(i). That charge requires proof that (1) the defendant conducted a transaction with money, (2) the money was the proceeds of an unlawful activity specified in the statute (including, for instance, drug trafficking), (3) the defendant knew that the money was the proceeds of that specified unlawful activity, and (4) the defendant intended that the transaction promote the activity or conceal the nature, the location, the source, the ownership, or the control of the money.

The Maryland indictment charges Ulrich with three crimes:

1. A narcotics trafficking conspiracy, under the same statute discussed above.

2. Attempted murder of a federal witness in violation of Title 18, United States Code, section 1512. That charge requires proof that the defendant (1) attempted to kill a person (2) intending to prevent the person (3) from communicating to federal law enforcement or a federal judge (4) about the commission of a federal crime. The indictment charges Ulbricht as someone who aided and abetted this crime under Title 18, United States Code, section 2; under that theory, if another person commits a federal crime, the defendant is equally guilty if the defendant intentionally "aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures" the commission of the crime.

3. Use of interstate commerce facilities to procure murder-for-hire, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, section 1958. That charge requires proof that the defendant(1) used or caused another to use any facility of interstate or foreign commerce (like the internet); (2) with the intent that a murder be committed; (3) in exchange for something of value.

I believe the seventh charge is the kingpin charge, though I can't find reference to it.

With the murder charge, so much for subscribing to idea of force as illegitimate... The rest of this might have been defensible as victimless crimes if not for attempting to contract the murder of his former partners to keep them from talking to police.
3651  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Obama Backs Government-Run Internet on: February 04, 2015, 09:45:59 PM



FCC chief prepares to overrule state Web laws



The head of the Federal Communications Commissionis urging his fellow commissioners to block state laws that would prevent cities and towns from building out their own government-run Internet services.

Chairman Tom Wheeler this week will circulate a draft decision to nullify laws in Tennessee and North Carolina, after receiving a request from towns in each of those states.

Cities across the country “should be able to make their own decisions about building the networks they need to thrive,” Wheeler said in a statement on Monday.

“After looking carefully at petitions by two community broadband providers asking the FCC to preempt provisions of state laws preventing expansion of their very successful networks, I recommend approval by the commission so that these two forward-thinking cities can serve the many citizens clamoring for a better broadband future.”
The move to preempt state laws limiting municipal broadband was long expected, and comes amid a broader effort by Wheeler to exert federal authority over people’s access to the Internet.



http://thehill.com/policy/technology/231422-fcc-will-move-to-block-state-laws




A victory for local autonomy. States want to be free of federal government restrictions in the same way local governments want to be free from state government restrictions.
3652  Other / Politics & Society / Both sides proven inaccurate about concealed carry on: February 04, 2015, 09:40:25 PM
It's been a year since concealed carry went into effect in Illinois, the last state to legalize it. Both sides were wrong about the consequences: concealed carry has neither led to a rash of shootings, nor a wave of crimes prevented through the intervention of armed citizens. This just shows that rhetoric isn't very useful for making policy, I'd rather politicians stick to making policy based on reality and real-world cause and effect.


In Illinois, concealed carry of guns has quiet first year; expansion sought

Keith Hearn was getting out of his car in front of his home in Chicago's South Shore neighborhood when, as he tells it, police pulled up and told him he had committed a minor traffic offense.

Hearn, 34, has a concealed-carry license and said he voluntarily told the officers he had a handgun on him. Nonetheless, he said officers arrested him and took him to their station, claiming his gun was partly showing. After checking, he said, police found the concealed-carry law allows a gun to be "mostly" concealed, and let him go without charges.

"I was disgusted," Hearn said. "Why was I arrested, handcuffed in front of my neighborhood, when I didn't break any laws?"

Hearn is among about 92,000 people who got licenses to carry a hidden gun in public last year in Illinois — the last state in the union to legalize "concealed carry," as it's called. Since it went into effect more than a year ago, the law has prompted neither the rash of shootings that opponents feared, nor a wave of crimes prevented through the intervention of armed citizens.

Instead, there are ongoing disputes over who should be allowed to carry a gun, and where. Those battles are being played out in the courts and occasionally, on the streets, as in Hearn's account, which Chicago police would not comment on or confirm.

Some citizens who were turned down for concealed-carry permits say they are being denied their constitutional right by a secretive state licensing board. Yet some law enforcement officials warn that dangerous people are being allowed to walk around with loaded weapons.

Problems have occasionally cropped up involving concealed carriers. In July, a man with a concealed-carry permit tried to foil an armed robbery by shooting at the fleeing robber in Crestwood, forcing a police officer to duck for cover, according to Tribune reports. No one was hurt, but firearms trainers said gun carriers who try to intervene when police are already on the scene can pose a serious danger. In another incident, a member of the military who had a license to carry a gun shot and wounded an armed man who had fired into a crowd on Chicago's Far South Side.

But in general, there have been relatively few problems implementing the law,according to several law enforcement officials.

Fred Hayes, chief of police in Elwood and president of the Illinois Association of Chiefs of Police, said he was "pleasantly surprised" that the rollout has gone so quietly. Hayes previously opposed the law but said fears of increased shootings have "not materialized."

For years, the association opposed the measure but chose to support its passage in 2013. Attitudes toward the law were split geographically, Hayes said, with downstate officers more supportive, and those in the Chicago area more opposed, due largely to the differing amount of gun crime in each region.

Arlington Heights Police Chief Gerald Mourning also said he had expected an adjustment period with the new law, but that problems have been virtually non-existent.

"We have dealt with it so infrequently that we simply haven't had any difficulties. I am surprised by it. I thought for sure we would encounter issues on a more regular basis," Mourning said. "It has not been an issue for us at all in terms of confrontations or misunderstandings."

In Aurora, police Cmdr. Paul Nelson said officers routinely ask during traffic stops if a subject possesses a firearm. If so, the officer will then request to see the concealed-carry license to determine if the weapon is legal, and then ask the subject not to touch the weapon during the traffic stop.

"When you look at it, we were the last of 50 states to implement this law. We act like this was some big new deal. In reality, everyone else had been doing it for many years, and there just haven't been any problems," Nelson said. "There was no reason for us to expect that it would be different in Illinois."

Martha Rosenberg, of the National Gun Victims Action Council, said the effect of the law was not as bad as she feared, but had a different theory as to why.

"Even though, legally, people can bring firearms out, there's a lot of places where they can't bring it," she said. "So the law is going well because the carriers aren't all over the place."

Gun advocates see the matter just the opposite way. Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association, said concealed carry helped Chicago see its lowest homicide rate in nearly 50 years last year. He argued for expanding the law to allow guns on public transportation, for instance, to reduce the number of robberies there.

Under the law, there are more than 25 types of establishments where guns are banned, including schools, government buildings, airports, parks, bars, casinos, zoos and libraries. Businesses that don't want guns must post a state police "no guns allowed" sign.

The most active battleground over gun rights is in the courts, where about 300 lawsuits have been filed against the state by people denied licenses. Some applications submitted by those who have sued have been sent back to the state for review and been awarded, while others are pending.

Previously, denials had to be appealed in court. As a result of changes to the process made last summer, applicants are notified of a police objection against them and can appeal directly to the Concealed Carry Licensing Review Board, which decides whether to award the license.

Under the law, county sheriffs, state's attorneys, local police and the attorney general can raise objections "based on reasonable suspicion" if an applicant appears to be a danger to himself or herself or others. The board reviews these objections and makes a final decision. Convicted felons and convicted domestic abusers are also denied the license.

Attorney Joe Obenberger represents several plaintiffs challenging their denials. He said many cases are based on arrests, not convictions, so the applicants should be presumed innocent. He also noted that the review board is made up mainly of law enforcement officials.

Despite the rule changes, Obenberger says applicants still aren't given the evidence against them beyond a summary objection and can't get an in-person hearing.

"Good and honorable, decent people are being denied left and right," he said.

The board has considered about 3,100 police objections and denied licenses to about 2,400 of them.

Claudia Castro, legal counsel for the board, said things are running much better since the rule changes.

"The board is much less conservative now," Castro said. "I think with time and experience and becoming more familiar with the applicants, they are becoming more flexible with their decision-making."

That board will now need to be reconstituted, though, as Gov. Bruce Rauner did not retain its members after taking office.

One group also trying to assess the impact of the new law is the business community.

Members of the Chicagoland Chamber of Commerce haven't run into any major problems with the law, spokeswoman Andree Dolan said.

Still, some local Chicago businesses feared that posting the sign would alienate potential customers or make the community uncomfortable. Eric Williams, owner of the Silver Room in Chicago, said he was hesitant about posting the no-carry sign in the window, despite not supporting the law.

"You have a big picture of a gun on the door," he said. "I don't want it there. Plus, I think it is silly to think that someone who has a concealed gun will not bring it into a store because of a tiny sign."

Chris Connelly, the manager of Reckless Records in Chicago's Wicker Park, pasted the sign in the window of his business immediately after the law was passed. He said that in Scotland, where he is from, guns hardly exist.

"Daily life really shouldn't involve becoming Clint Eastwood all of a sudden," Connelly said. "There have been no issues at all and zero reactions. For 99.9 percent of my customers, it doesn't affect their life."

Gun advocates hope to change the law to cut back on the number of places where guns are prohibited.

There may be support for tightening the law from the governor's mansion. During the campaign, Rauner reportedly said he supported the law, but it was too confusing for gun owners to know where they couldn't carry a gun.

Cook County Sheriff Tom Dart warned that dangerous people are getting guns. His office objected to more than 2,000 applicants, about half of whom had arrests for domestic abuse or orders of protection, and 18 murder suspects arrested but not convicted.

Dart called for having the law specify grounds for objections, such as prior arrests, but is not optimistic about changing the law. As a former lawmaker himself, he said, legislators don't want to revisit the issue because it's too controversial.
3653  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Pro-Big Government Candidates for US President 2016 on: February 04, 2015, 08:29:04 PM

Rand Paul has my vote for the primary, without question, because there's no one else worth voting for on either side. (I live in a state where you can only vote on one side, which is dumb.) But in the general election, I'll be back to someone who more closely represents libertarianism in Gary Johnson.
Well, at least I'll give you props for helping out in the primary. I vote for lots of LP candidate each election but when there's a demonstrably proven libertarian-leaning republican running for federal office that maintains stances in favor of civil liberties and a restrained foreign policy then it's up to me as a Libertarian to lend that candidate (that has a way better chance of winning than the LP candidate) my vote, activism and maybe even my money. In a situation of practicality like this, the good is not the enemy of the perfect.

I definitely see the validity in this line of thinking, but I land on the other side in saying that this is why third parties can't get traction. The two parties conspire to keep everyone else out through ballot access laws, and people are convinced that the two party system can be changed within the confines of the two party system. I hope I'm wrong, but my prediction is Paul will move to the conservative base to win support, rather than having the conservative base come to him (which I never see happening en masse). I know I've stated it before, but the precedent I'm basing this on is the way Obama completely sold out the foreign policy he ran on once he was elected. There was no way he could have been reelected if he had stuck to what he promised: less war, congressional approval for military interventions, closing Guantanamo, etc. Hell, Obama's government assassinated American citizens, and told us the legal justification that gave him permission to do that was classified. There's no more grave abuse of executive power than that, and after he made his political career on the premise that the president is not all-powerful. The promises he made gave way to political reality, and it forever jaded the way I will look at how politicians act in our two party system.
3654  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Bill Gates Calls for ‘Global Government’ on: February 04, 2015, 08:15:42 PM
The UN was made for one purpose, and so far it has succeded in it: preventing a third world war, fought with nukes. That is how the security council was selected, and the purpose of the veto rights. Small-scale wars were considered unavoidable. Stuff like UNESCO is just fluffy bonus programs that don't hurt the great powers.

Global government? Fine for me if it was democratic and extremely decentralized... but that's not what someone like Gates has in mind, and illusionary in the current ideological climate. What he wants is the realistic version: a capitalist oligarchy with himself in a place in the politburo.

Bullshit, un was formed to create a world army for the elites once again. You really need stop sipping the cool aid and look and think for yourself because all media as been controlled by the mafia since 1940s when they brought it all up. You've lived all your life in a era where its all controlled and I mean all. Nothing you see or read or programmed at school is true. Its all double speak!

Have a look and think for yourself what the un as done in the past and is pushing for! Its not peace! And they are the one with the armies that go into all these war zones in the guise of bringing peace! Army's do not bring peace! Wake up and smell the roses and stop drinking the bullshit coolaid!

This is all probably too heavy for the people here because your obviously nowhere near opening your eyes to the truth. But remember, even in a minority of 1, the truth is still the truth! Also remember when your thinking about these things, even if your not thinking completely correctly, your still a danger to the few at the top because you are thinking!

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=BHc8cdL9xQk

Snap out of the daze your all under! So sad that this site is swamped by people who don't understand the importance of block chain technology! No government! Period is the only answer! People power! Otherwise, we are all fucked! No matter where your from if these sick fucks get what they want!

It's hard to take your point on global conspiracy seriously when you can't master the difference between "your" and "you're."
3655  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Conservative Bigots Heckle Muslim Americans Attempting to Sing National Anthem on: February 04, 2015, 08:09:03 PM
But you changed what I said without indicating that you had done so.  Would have been nice if you'd just indicated you were making a change to what you thought.  

Hahaha, mate, I pointed out plainly I was changing the quote. FTFY = Fixed That For You. It's used to indicate someone altered a quote to make it more accurate. In this case, I was making it reflect reality. You missed the joke. The point was you're stating as fact something that isn't.

From Wikipedia-
Bigotry is a state of mind where a person strongly, obstinately, irrationally, unfairly or intolerantly dislikes other people, ideas, etc.

See, my point is they're not protesting CAIR. They don't reference CAIR in signs or speech. They are protesting a gathering of Muslims. That's why they're bigots, as evidenced by the definition you quoted.

This shows the blond lady talking, and the microphone being rudely taken away from here.
How very rude!  She didn't push or shove anyone, and they denied her freedom of speech!

The woman was not invited to speak at the podium. She is using someone else's equipment without permission, which is inherently a use of force. To the extent anyone responds to take the property that does not belong to her away, it's self defense. They didn't deny her speech, they denied her access to their property. She was perfectly free to shout her hate speech without their microphone, but she wanted to make sure she was the center of attention. Mission accomplished!

Anti-sharia legislation is certainly constitutional.

Anti-sharia legislation is redundant on the grounds that the government can't enforce any religion in the first place, or the laws any religion has. Any law that attempts to tell a religious community what rules can govern its own religion is unconstitutional, whether it be sharia law with arbitrary rules for Muslims within the Islamic faith, or the arbitrary Christian rules they impose upon themselves.
3656  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Senator Ted Cruz Unveils Obamacare Repeal Act on: February 04, 2015, 07:54:10 PM
I've been waiting for republicans to get going on this after all the promises. I'll be interested to see how committed they are to the repeal, because I've been operating on the assumption that they talk about it for theater more than anything else. I'm a skeptic, but I view this as a campaign move more than a serious attempt to repeal.
3657  Other / Politics & Society / Re: OPEC leader: Oil could shoot back to $200 on: February 04, 2015, 07:50:41 PM
Shoot back to $200? Was oil ever $200 before? I don't think it has been in the last 5 years, I'm not sure about before then. Also, didn't some Saudi Prince recently go on the record saying he's sure oil would never again hit $100? I'm pretty sure there was a thread about that in here recently.
3658  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Why Arming the Ukrainians is a Bad Idea on: February 04, 2015, 07:47:39 PM
let's not start ww3 over a quarrel between far away peoples of which we know nothing, didn't we learn the last time


Unless the aim of fomenting that quarrel over the last 25+ years by use of various American "democracy-promoting" grants, was exactly to start a WW3... In which case I can see US going in full monty, as they are are doing now.



The following bit of the OP article is still conformant to the mainstream Western propaganda line:

Quote
Steve and Strobe’s article (and the supporting report with several other prominent authors) rings with fury at Russian actions. And Russian actions are indeed outrageous. But moral indignation, no matter how righteous and satisfying, is not a strategy. A strategy needs to describe just how provision of American arms would make the situation better.

Rather than such a description, the article suggests that a just cause and the Ukrainian need and desire for weapons are enough to justify their provision. But it is hardly surprising that the Ukrainians want American arms in their war against Russia and Russian-backed separatists—they face the possibility of territorial dismemberment and would run any risk to preserve their state intact.

The Ukrainian calculus is one of immediate desperation. But the United States needs to think for the longer-term. And if U.S.-provided weapons fail to induce a Russian retreat in Ukraine and instead cause an escalation of the war, the net result will not be peace and compromise.

The real intellectual break-through in the West will be when they realise that Russia is not present in Ukraine and is not at war with Ukraine. Rather Ukraine is in an imaginary war with Russia. So there is no Russia to retreat in the first place.

What we have in Donbass, are people, who have lived there for centuries, and who have nowhere to go. Yes, they are Russian by ethnicity, so yes, what Kiev-nazis do with US support is in effect an ethnic cleansing. But the people of Donbass are fighting back for their own land and for their right to live, not for Russia.

The "outrageous" actions by Russia so far include: peace brokerage, several hundred thousand tonnes of humanitarian aide, split over 13 convoys, being host to close to a million refugees from the war-zone, and now taking in thousands of young men from Ukraine of conscript age, who don't want to die in a war, imposed on them by Western-backed Nazis.

It's funny you talk about western propaganda while using language like this:

what Kiev-nazis do with US support is in effect an ethnic cleansing.

Amidst the other Russian propaganda in your post. You have no credibility to talk about propaganda when your own posts are so full of it.
3659  Other / Politics & Society / FCC Chairman Wheeler's Open Letter re: Net Neutrality on: February 04, 2015, 07:38:45 PM

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler: This Is How We Will Ensure Net Neutrality


Federal Communication Commission(FCC) Chairman Tom Wheeler waits for a hearing at the FCC
December 11, 2014 in Washington, DC.  Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images


After more than a decade of debate and a record-setting proceeding that attracted nearly 4 million public comments, the time to settle the Net Neutrality question has arrived. This week, I will circulate to the members of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) proposed new rules to preserve the internet as an open platform for innovation and free expression. This proposal is rooted in long-standing regulatory principles, marketplace experience, and public input received over the last several months.

Broadband network operators have an understandable motivation to manage their network to maximize their business interests. But their actions may not always be optimal for network users. The Congress gave the FCC broad authority to update its rules to reflect changes in technology and marketplace behavior in a way that protects consumers. Over the years, the Commission has used this authority to the public’s great benefit.

The internet wouldn’t have emerged as it did, for instance, if the FCC hadn’t mandated open access for network equipment in the late 1960s. Before then, AT&T prohibited anyone from attaching non-AT&T equipment to the network. The modems that enabled the internet were usable only because the FCC required the network to be open.

Companies such as AOL were able to grow in the early days of home computing because these modems gave them access to the open telephone network.

I personally learned the importance of open networks the hard way. In the mid-1980s I was president of a startup, NABU: The Home Computer Network. My company was using new technology to deliver high-speed data to home computers over cable television lines. Across town Steve Case was starting what became AOL. NABU was delivering service at the then-blazing speed of 1.5 megabits per second—hundreds of times faster than Case’s company. “We used to worry about you a lot,” Case told me years later.

But NABU went broke while AOL became very successful. Why that is highlights the fundamental problem with allowing networks to act as gatekeepers.

While delivering better service, NABU had to depend on cable television operators granting access to their systems. Steve Case was not only a brilliant entrepreneur, but he also had access to an unlimited number of customers nationwide who only had to attach a modem to their phone line to receive his service. The phone network was open whereas the cable networks were closed. End of story.

The phone network’s openness did not happen by accident, but by FCC rule. How we precisely deliver that kind of openness for America’s broadband networks has been the subject of a debate over the last several months.

Originally, I believed that the FCC could assure internet openness through a determination of “commercial reasonableness” under Section 706 of the Telecommunications Act of 1996. While a recent court decision seemed to draw a roadmap for using this approach, I became concerned that this relatively new concept might, down the road, be interpreted to mean what is reasonable for commercial interests, not consumers.

That is why I am proposing that the FCC use its Title II authority to implement and enforce open internet protections.

Using this authority, I am submitting to my colleagues the strongest open internet protections ever proposed by the FCC. These enforceable, bright-line rules will ban paid prioritization, and the blocking and throttling of lawful content and services. I propose to fully apply—for the first time ever—those bright-line rules to mobile broadband. My proposal assures the rights of internet users to go where they want, when they want, and the rights of innovators to introduce new products without asking anyone’s permission.

All of this can be accomplished while encouraging investment in broadband networks. To preserve incentives for broadband operators to invest in their networks, my proposal will modernize Title II, tailoring it for the 21st century, in order to provide returns necessary to construct competitive networks. For example, there will be no rate regulation, no tariffs, no last-mile unbundling. Over the last 21 years, the wireless industry has invested almost $300 billion under similar rules, proving that modernized Title II regulation can encourage investment and competition.

Congress wisely gave the FCC the power to update its rules to keep pace with innovation. Under that authority my proposal includes a general conduct rule that can be used to stop new and novel threats to the internet. This means the action we take will be strong enough and flexible enough not only to deal with the realities of today, but also to establish ground rules for the as yet unimagined.

The internet must be fast, fair and open. That is the message I’ve heard from consumers and innovators across this nation. That is the principle that has enabled the internet to become an unprecedented platform for innovation and human expression. And that is the lesson I learned heading a tech startup at the dawn of the internet age. The proposal I present to the commission will ensure the internet remains open, now and in the future, for all Americans.
3660  Other / Politics & Society / Re: Bill Gates Calls for ‘Global Government’ on: February 02, 2015, 11:49:40 PM
Isn't this what the United Nations is for?

Calling it Government will guarantee that it never happens. We don't need a world governed by one administration. We need a world were all administrations have committed to following the same high-level of select standards.

The UN is voluntary though, with no ability to enforce its decisions. Unless my understanding is wrong, wouldn't the point of having one world 'government' differ in that it would function as we know governments to function now? That is, they make laws and enforce them through the use of force?
Pages: « 1 ... 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 [183] 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 »
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!