mmm, though isn't there a ...err... i forget the word, starts with C... meaning that if you deliberately invoke it to prevent it, you lose anyway? or something. *brain is made of fuzz right now*
functional monopolies (or duopolies) in the USA + regulatory capture. elsewhere there's either actual competition or the government regulation is specifically designed to keep the monopolies under control (or the government runs the thing itself) every one of which leads to price reductions, service quality improvements, or both (ok, to be fair, the government running it itself depends could go either way, but they don't have a major incentive Not to improve things where possible. not by default at least)
Re: The Rich should pay $10,000 to eat an ordinary meal at McDonald's.
i'm going to agree with your described problem but also conclude that your proposed solution is silly.
simply putting an end to the incredibly stupid policies in place in large parts of the world that favour the massively rich over the poor in the first place would help a lot more. and actually be viable
actually, generally speaking the kid just learning to drive is less likely to screw up in a life threatening way than the 30 year old who thinks they know everything and had one too many beers (or just anger management issues)
what, you mean not at all because you don't control who the options are?
seriously, you're better off in a properly organised feudal system than the utter farce that is 'representative' democracy, especially when one lives in an empire the size of the USA. (the British empire was larger, but due to the limits of geography and tech, it's colonies were in many ways functionally more independant than US states... well, after the successful american revolt, anyway :P still, when something went wrong, it was usually possible to directly lay it at the feet of the individual responsible and have them replaced, minimum.)
at least then an Actual majority, properly employed, is irresistible. Aku Soku Zan and all that. something representative democracy prevents in the name of stability (NOT freedom.)
take a look at south america... you know all those wonderfully non-democratic states down there? yeah? thank the CIA for most of them. assassinating a democratically elected leader and setting up a dictatorial puppet government in the name of democracy? (actually, more in the name of US hegemony and corporate profit, but having people Know that would make things more difficult)
well, other factors aside, it's generally a good idea to keep the spelling and grammar as close to the norm as possible, for while it is possible to understand it reguardless, it takes more effort and can cause confusion.
perhaps more significantly, in more formal contexts (not so much in short comments, but when you're trying to make a point and go into a fair bit of detail) it does make it look like you don't care enough to pay attention to the details and such... which is an attitude that often carries over into other aspects of how one thinks about things, thus undermining one's credability.
but only to a point. getting massively hung up over a few minor errors in a context that lacks professional editors and proof readers (who SHOULD know what they're doing and get mocked/reprimanded for failing at it) is quite silly when the message is understood and intelligent. getting your spelling, grammar, and punctuation right is just useful. the closer it is to correct, the lower the barrier for entry into understanding what you are saying.
the tone of combined arrogance and paranoia without reference in grav's post does more to undermine credibility than such errors unless such errors are so rampant as to render the post unintellegable.
(added fun fact: a lot of the rules for 'proper' english grammar that people get all strung out about don't apply to english and never did. they're from Latin. oh, and about never ending a sentence with a preposition? not only is it wrong as used, it's misused. you can't end a sentence with a preposition, not because it's a rule of english, but because if you DO, by the 'rules' of linguistics, it's a POSTposition. which, just by the by, english has. their use is entirely correct)
and yes, i am aware of my own lack of capitalisiation, use of commonwealth spellings, and general spelling/typing issues. not necessarily the specific instances, but in general.
ehh, there's some conotational differences (derogatory usually means to speak to someone as if they are below you, while insulting only requires being rude. it's possible to be insulting without being derogatory, in the usual usage, but not the other way around)
On the post: WikiLeaks Planning Legal Action Against PayPal, MasterCard & Visa
Re: Re:
On the post: Should Americans Have To Ask What They're 'Allowed' To Express?
Re:
perhaps it's time to focus on stopping that fall before the ground does it for you.
On the post: Christopher S. Little's Favorite Techdirt Posts Of The Week
Re: Re:
that's my guess anyway.
On the post: Ericsson Recognizes That 'Piracy' Isn't The Problem, But A Symptom Of Failed Business Models
Re: Re: Re: Re:
and therefore involved.
On the post: Head Of Spanish Music Collection Society Facing Corruption Charges
Re:
On the post: Why Piracy Happens: Because No One In Mexico Thinks Tron Legacy Is Worth Paying $136
Re:
...
...
*wanders off to find a parrot*
On the post: Why Piracy Happens: Because No One In Mexico Thinks Tron Legacy Is Worth Paying $136
Re: The Rich should pay $10,000 to eat an ordinary meal at McDonald's.
simply putting an end to the incredibly stupid policies in place in large parts of the world that favour the massively rich over the poor in the first place would help a lot more. and actually be viable
On the post: RIAA: LulzSec & Anonymous Show Why We Need PROTECT IP
aku soku zan
and in a completely different country.
On the post: Feds Still Trying To Abuse Trademark Law (?!?) To Stop Motorcycle Gang
Re:
fairly sure i don't think it should be done that way, but it seems like the sort of thinking that would go into such a decision.
On the post: When You're About To Fly, Who Do You Fear More: Al Qaeda... Or The TSA?
Re:
just, ya know, putting that out there.
On the post: When You're About To Fly, Who Do You Fear More: Al Qaeda... Or The TSA?
Re: Re: TSA
the Terrorist Society of America, at least.
at least they're not an industry association yet?
On the post: When You're About To Fly, Who Do You Fear More: Al Qaeda... Or The TSA?
Re: TSA
On the post: When You're About To Fly, Who Do You Fear More: Al Qaeda... Or The TSA?
Re: Re: Re: 2 extra questions
seriously, you're better off in a properly organised feudal system than the utter farce that is 'representative' democracy, especially when one lives in an empire the size of the USA. (the British empire was larger, but due to the limits of geography and tech, it's colonies were in many ways functionally more independant than US states... well, after the successful american revolt, anyway :P still, when something went wrong, it was usually possible to directly lay it at the feet of the individual responsible and have them replaced, minimum.)
at least then an Actual majority, properly employed, is irresistible. Aku Soku Zan and all that. something representative democracy prevents in the name of stability (NOT freedom.)
On the post: When You're About To Fly, Who Do You Fear More: Al Qaeda... Or The TSA?
Re: Re:
On the post: When You're About To Fly, Who Do You Fear More: Al Qaeda... Or The TSA?
Re: Re: Re:
take a look at south america... you know all those wonderfully non-democratic states down there? yeah? thank the CIA for most of them. assassinating a democratically elected leader and setting up a dictatorial puppet government in the name of democracy? (actually, more in the name of US hegemony and corporate profit, but having people Know that would make things more difficult)
s good job. /s
On the post: When You're About To Fly, Who Do You Fear More: Al Qaeda... Or The TSA?
Re: Re: Re: Well since you asked..
perhaps more significantly, in more formal contexts (not so much in short comments, but when you're trying to make a point and go into a fair bit of detail) it does make it look like you don't care enough to pay attention to the details and such... which is an attitude that often carries over into other aspects of how one thinks about things, thus undermining one's credability.
but only to a point. getting massively hung up over a few minor errors in a context that lacks professional editors and proof readers (who SHOULD know what they're doing and get mocked/reprimanded for failing at it) is quite silly when the message is understood and intelligent. getting your spelling, grammar, and punctuation right is just useful. the closer it is to correct, the lower the barrier for entry into understanding what you are saying.
the tone of combined arrogance and paranoia without reference in grav's post does more to undermine credibility than such errors unless such errors are so rampant as to render the post unintellegable.
(added fun fact: a lot of the rules for 'proper' english grammar that people get all strung out about don't apply to english and never did. they're from Latin. oh, and about never ending a sentence with a preposition? not only is it wrong as used, it's misused. you can't end a sentence with a preposition, not because it's a rule of english, but because if you DO, by the 'rules' of linguistics, it's a POSTposition. which, just by the by, english has. their use is entirely correct)
and yes, i am aware of my own lack of capitalisiation, use of commonwealth spellings, and general spelling/typing issues. not necessarily the specific instances, but in general.
On the post: Sony CEO: We Were Hacked By Freetards Who Just Want Everything Free
Re:
On the post: Sony CEO: We Were Hacked By Freetards Who Just Want Everything Free
Re: Re: Freetards? I must disagree
On the post: Righthaven Helping To Establish A Much More Expansive View Of Fair Use In Copying Newspaper Articles
On the post: Apparently 'Hacked Sony PS3 & Got Sued For It' Looks Good On The Resume
hehehe.
Next >>