While I applaud your pedantism (I'm pedantic myself), you fail to understand the genesis of the phrase. "Have your cake amd eat it too" isn't referring to a dime-store confection; think more like wedding cake, or finely detailed jubilee cake. The term is referring to having your cake - having this beautiful, aesthetically pleasing piece of artwork; and also being able to eat it. If you eat it, you lose out on the prettiness and the symbolism of whatever it is celebrating; if instead you opt to keep it, you lose out on delicious cake.
You seem to contradict yourself here. If it was foreseeable, and the complaint was that they were deliberately ignoring people foreseeing it... well, that should be plenthly of proof of negligence. Everything in this article suggests that they were rubbing the noses of the landlords in the evidence, in fact.
William Braunfeld (profile), 21 Jun 2017 @ 10:59am
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Consistency in corruption
We don't need to get a third party candidate into office to influence the two we have, though. If enough of us vote third party we will push the main parties in the direction we want by forcing them to scramble to get our votes back. I recall again statements that Bernie Sanders pushed the Democrats further left simply by being as popular as he was; if we vote in line with our principles, we may not get the candidate we want, but we can force other candidates to adapt their views to cater to us. We tend to forget the power we actually have in our system, generally because of the fear of the "other side."
Bleh. I'm spending too much time typing and not enough thinking; it makes me sound like an idiot. I was thinkin of the presidential race, not house/senate. I stand by my assertion that where possible, voting for third parties is worthwhile even knowing they can't win; in places where that's not possible, if you disagree with the options, writing in No Confidence may be a good choice. But for the most part you can disregard my above post as irrelevant.
"...every year"? The hell is even going on in my brain.
"Stand up and be counted." Don't assume that because things are this way, they must always stay this way. Stand for your principles, vote for who you truly believe in even if they will likely lose; the more people willing to do that, the less likely this goverenment duopoly will persist. And if none of the candidates are worh voting for, be willing to write "No Confidence" on your ballot.
While they are being unnecessarily hyperbolic and aggressive with this, I actually do not strictly disagree with the AC in this case. Your response, however, is pure reductio ad absurdum. Have you so soon forgotten that there ARE more than two names on the ballot every year? Where AC is correct here is in the statement that our own self-conviction that non-R and non-D votes are "wasted voted" is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and ignores (as I stated in prior posts) the effect that even a decent minority can have on the parties; if we vote for those who better represent what we want, even knowing they will lose, we can use that pressure to push the "big" parties toward what we want to reclaim their votes. This sort of response is willfully abdicating the power you can wield as a voter.
Can we compare this to the number of terrorist attacks targeting airplanes using explosives hidden inside laptops, per year, versus the total number of flights? Who is arm-waving, again?
*"A sensible question is why civilized governments do not seek to deprive terrorists of unfettered access to the Internet..."*
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; **or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;** or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Emphasis mine, of course.
(Incidentally, for the reframers out there: an ISP is not a provider of a platform. They are not compelled in this case to host speech, because they don't own the internet, they just provide *access* to it.)
William Braunfeld (profile), 28 May 2017 @ 12:56pm
Re: Re: Re: Technical question about phone security
To be fair, that's kind of a nonsense comparison. It'd make more sense to compare a phone to a computer, not a dosc drive; the programs on the phone encrypt the data, as does a standing-encryption program on a computer. A disc drive is only part of a computer, just as memory is only part of a phone.
Dude. Deep breaths. You are not helping anyone by being this hostile. Ignorant should not be an insult, and someone asking questions is not being WILLFULLY ignorant. Being polite and respectful in correcting them goes a long way. Also, opinions are opinions. You can disagree with them without calling the other person a liar. Yes, he was mistaken on this; insulting people when they ask for clarification is only going to make them mistaken *and* stubborn about it.
Re: Re: Nobody vote for a single Republican (or Democtrat) candidate next election.
I would, instead, encourage people to go out and vote, but to write in No Confidence on their voting ballot. That's what I did in the previous election, and while I tried to convince others to do the same, I live in a hard democrat state, which was pretty solidly for Hillary.
They already do this with online ads, eating significantly into data caps. Seems likely the telcos are happy to support anything that lets them charge for more minutes.
On the post: Comcast: We Must Kill Net Neutrality To Help The Sick And Disabled
Re: You did it again!
On the post: Comcast: We Must Kill Net Neutrality To Help The Sick And Disabled
The Information Superhighway
Disingenuous.
On the post: White House Plan To Reduce Drug Prices... Is To EXTEND Patents?
On the post: SLAPP Threats And The Grenfell Fire: Why We Must Stop Attacks On Free Speech
Re: Two sides
On the post: Cable Lobbyists Try To Scuttle State Inquiries Into Shitty Broadband Service, Slow Speeds
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Consistency in corruption
We tend to forget the power we actually have in our system, generally because of the fear of the "other side."
On the post: EFF Sues FBI Over Withheld NSL Guideline Documents
The documents were located...
On the post: Sen. Feinstein Calls For Section 702 Reforms, No 'Forever' Reauthorization
Re: Re: Re: but of course!
I stand by my assertion that where possible, voting for third parties is worthwhile even knowing they can't win; in places where that's not possible, if you disagree with the options, writing in No Confidence may be a good choice. But for the most part you can disregard my above post as irrelevant.
"...every year"? The hell is even going on in my brain.
On the post: Sen. Feinstein Calls For Section 702 Reforms, No 'Forever' Reauthorization
Re: Re: but of course!
On the post: Sen. Feinstein Calls For Section 702 Reforms, No 'Forever' Reauthorization
Re: Re: but of course!
Where AC is correct here is in the statement that our own self-conviction that non-R and non-D votes are "wasted voted" is a self-fulfilling prophecy, and ignores (as I stated in prior posts) the effect that even a decent minority can have on the parties; if we vote for those who better represent what we want, even knowing they will lose, we can use that pressure to push the "big" parties toward what we want to reclaim their votes. This sort of response is willfully abdicating the power you can wield as a voter.
On the post: Report Falsely Blames The EFF For Fraudulent Net Neutrality Comments
On the post: Proposed DHS Rules May Cause The Deaths They Claim To Prevent
Re:
Who is arm-waving, again?
On the post: Former FCC Commissioner Uses Manchester Bombing As A Prop To Claim Net Neutrality Aids Terrorism
Sigh.
On the post: Former FCC Commissioner Uses Manchester Bombing As A Prop To Claim Net Neutrality Aids Terrorism
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; **or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;** or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Emphasis mine, of course.
(Incidentally, for the reframers out there: an ISP is not a provider of a platform. They are not compelled in this case to host speech, because they don't own the internet, they just provide *access* to it.)
On the post: Samsung's 'Airtight' Iris Scanning Technology For The S8 Defeated With A Camera, Printer, And Contact Lens
Curse my fat fingers yet again.
On the post: Samsung's 'Airtight' Iris Scanning Technology For The S8 Defeated With A Camera, Printer, And Contact Lens
Re: Re: Re: Technical question about phone security
Dunno if that made sense, but I tried XD
On the post: Samsung's 'Airtight' Iris Scanning Technology For The S8 Defeated With A Camera, Printer, And Contact Lens
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Technical question about phone security
Ignorant should not be an insult, and someone asking questions is not being WILLFULLY ignorant. Being polite and respectful in correcting them goes a long way.
Also, opinions are opinions. You can disagree with them without calling the other person a liar. Yes, he was mistaken on this; insulting people when they ask for clarification is only going to make them mistaken *and* stubborn about it.
On the post: RNC, Chamber Of Commerce Want Robocallers To Be Able To Spam Your Voicemail Without Your Phone Ringing
Re: Re: Nobody vote for a single Republican (or Democtrat) candidate next election.
On the post: If Net Neutrality Dies, Comcast Can Just Block A Protest Site Instead Of Sending A Bogus Cease-And-Desist
Many Re's: You see disaster. I see retribution.
On the post: RNC, Chamber Of Commerce Want Robocallers To Be Able To Spam Your Voicemail Without Your Phone Ringing
Re:
On the post: RNC, Chamber Of Commerce Want Robocallers To Be Able To Spam Your Voicemail Without Your Phone Ringing
Re: Re:
Next >>