HP made the printer the story was originally printed on before looking the link up and posting it.

I am entitled to my tax money protecting the public against anti-trust behavior which is widely documented and widely accepted as detrimental to the health and well-being of society and government. You do not have the right to start a cabal

What gives you that entitlement and what powers allow you to take that right from others?

I am entitled to my government not using my tax money to flood the job market with immigrant workers, illegal, legal, or otherwise, to the point where all job growth since 2000, which has been exactly zero job growth, has gone to those migrant workers.

Again, where does this entitlement come from? Also, do you realize that this is why these tech companies want the h1b visa's. Because they cannot easily be poached by other companies and their salaries are pretty constant.

That is all that's guaranteed here.

Where is it guaranteed?

There's a certain kind of manager who believes that they can piss in the soup and eat their cake too; if you get to piss in the soup, I Do TOO!, and that's where your $15 an hour McDonald entitlement and twinkle factory closings come from.

I am of the opinion that kind of manager needs to be publicly executed, but I'll settle for jailtime, you fucking shill.
Reply to This Share

What? Ok, you completely lost me on this one. Are you just picking things out of a couple of newspapers and ranting about them?

Yep... And â" for a car analogy â" if I'm driving, I want to be able to drive on any road with any speed by car can go, and park wherever I see fit. No matter, who built the road or attends to the parking lot.

Except you purchased a car and I sold you a horse and buggy. You see, the problem without net neutrality is that you believe you are purchasing 10 megs of unlimited internet but if the website you are trying to reach is popular enough but doesn't pay your provider additional money or the services you want to use compete with those offered by the ISP's company you do not get 10 megs unlimited access. In some cases, you do not even get the internet because parts of it is blocked (ports). So this is just like a bait and switch.

The government's role is to help competition appear â" by reducing the red-tape around laying down wires and fiber â" not by trying to force the incumbent monopoly to play nice(r).

It is also consumer protection. Just like the government would get involved when you purchase that sports car and I shove a horse and buggy in front of you, if the ISP is purposely restricting speeds or access that they sold you, they are not delivering what they sold you.

Now I'm against government regulating the internet. Eventually evil will come from it if allowed. What is needed for a net neutrality law is something simple stating what the internet is, and that unless addressing a bona fide attack, the ISP cannot limit the speeds or data amounts to anything below what they advertised when selling the service to any customer. And no, up to claims would not get around that because if a limit is placed at 8 megs and you purchased up to10 megs speed, you can never achieve that 10 megs when they intentionally limit it. Congestion likely would because it would be beyond their direct involvement.

A simple law like that, maybe with some penalties and strict instructions to not call a service the internet if it isn't open and available to the definition and the speeds sold, is all that needs to happen. But on that note, I think existing consumer protection laws could be applied if the judges and juries didn't think something magical was happening when they typed WWW or that the internet consisted of only WWW.

Finally, it's been around for a while

Well, maybe not a single chip but the concept anyways.

It is about time we got some tea party democrats.

I know, tea party is a bad word, but anti-establishment is almost synonymous with it. It finally sound like we might see a democrat who is still actively supporting the working man instead of riding the coat tails of the real democrats who went before him.

And blacks always had the same rights as everyone else on same terms as everyone else: that they needed to be white to have any.

The failure here is the US constitution disallowed distinctions based on race after the 14th amendment. It took some time, but that was affirmed by the US supreme court in Loving v. Virginia circa 1967.

Yes, it is. And frankly, those of us who aren't Nazis are starting to get a bit tired of having this exact same conversation over every single group you wish to take your problems out on. So please follow your fuhrer to the wastebin of history already.

I'm sure you are not talking about me. But please go ahead and make a case if you think you are. I have absolutely no problem with interracial marriage and I have no problem with gay marriage where their state laws allows it. But if you think that because I pointed something truthful out that I'm somehow against all that, you best think again.

The Nazis didn't view the Jews as being people either.

No, they viewed them as inferior people but people none the less. Seriously, look up Eugenics and the T4 program of the Nazis which lead to the holocaust eventually.

The first thing you do when you're looking to oppress some group is to fire up the propaganda machine and dehumanize that group. Hell, it was in the Constitution for a while, a slave's counted as 2/3rds of a person.

Any student of history would tell you that the 3/5ths part of the US constitution was not about demonizing the slaves or anyone. It was about deciding how many representative seats a state would have and how much taxes the state would have to pay.

You want to make an argument that marriage is for children, I'm FINE with what, as long as a man and a woman won't be able to get married if they'd be unable to produce children. You never see that in any of those "Marriage Protection" laws, and there'd be riots if you did.

Only idiots would make that argument. The state needs a reason for having a law. Marriage used to be controlled completely by the churches until some king in England (I think) got into a power struggle with the church and took it over. In the US, we do things differently, we do not make laws for the sake of having laws. Marriage is about the advancement of society and children or more importantly, who is responsible for them was part of their public interest. Inheritance and communal ownership was some others. Marriage protection laws seem to be based either on religious needs or long standing tradition as a lot of the advancement or protections for society has dwindled away. But we are getting way off topic with this.

You think the Ferguson police force views the citizens there as people? I think they'd randomly stop and harass them a lot less if they did.

I'm sure they view them as people. The problem is almost all cops go through a john Wayne syndrome stage where they think they are the shit and if you do not respect their authority they will learn you different. Most of them grow out of it before it is even noticed, some skip it altogether. The problem with Ferguson is they pay rock bottom wages so about any cop who is good at what they do would move to another city for better pay.

It's awfully hard to do that sort of thing to people. It's also a lot harder to be so terrified of them that faced with an unarmed one (person,) with his hands up, you'd point an assault rifle at them and threaten to kill them.

Wow.. You are just full of misconceptions. Anyways, that seems to be the version of evens from the rabble rousers but not from the some of the witnesses and cops. But it doesn't matter, the truth probably lays somewhere in between the two extremes and we will never know seeing how this has turned political.

Corporations are not people, they are persons. And corporations have been persons since 1819 at least in case law but title 1 section 1 of the US code was created with the intent of including corporations under the legal definition of person. The intent was specifically to include corporations when person was used in federal law.

The only "now" about it is that you know about it and there was a recent court case which likely brought it to your attention.

But all this has nothing to do with what I said. Eugenics was the reasoning behind what the parent was spewing on about not being recognized as a person or not.

As for your tax scam, you would have to check with the states because the feds do no govern marriage but I'm pretty sure someone does not have the same legal definition as you think it might. And determining the sex of a corporation which is "persons" as defined by law might be trivial but until polygamy is legal, I don't think you could take that route.

Where legal definitions are concerned, neither do you. And it still doesn't matter. Current law covers it without even stretching.

And just where is this cyborg act of congress that defines a cyborg? Otherwise, you are making stuff up.

Change the subject, and not answer the real point: current law covers implanted technology in one of two ways, and does so quite thoroughly.

And I discussed a way that it doesn't cover- one in which the human is no longer sentient and is controlled by an AI (like they intended RoboCop and the Universal Soldiers series until one of them accessed the human side and let it through)

nterpreting the equivalent of a mouse signal and replaying memories are not even qualitatively the same thing, and we have already proven, quite conclusively, how inaccurate memory can be, even of one's own actions. The chances of such a system being reliable enough to be admissible are zero within the lifetimes of anyone alive today. And even if such technology were developed, current law still covers it.

And you are a complete idiot of you think this will never change. And how does current law currently cover an AI system implanted within a human who may not be able to express itself any more but otherwise functions like normal and expected?

Once again, and I'll use small words this time:

Either it is an electronic device, and the laws covering the search of computers and cell phones covers it - show probably cause and you get a warrant.

Or it's part of the body, and decades old case law covering forced collection of biometric evidence - DNA, fingerprints, blood samples - covers it. Show probably cause, and you get a warrant.

See above. which is it, a human or a device? That is the point I'm driving.

I guess you could query the battery pack all day long but when you query the part inside the person, well you know where I'm going.

It is really no different then you asking my food where I have been. It's perfectly fine until it is inside me. Then you need a warrant or my permission/willingness. But then again, your food doesn't have any rights. The fridge it is kept in, the stove used to prepare it, the plates it is served on or the house it was stored and consumed in, none of that has any rights. But you do and those rights prevent an open search of them for whatever reason unless certain criteria is secured first (permission, warrant/probable cause).

I don't think it matters. Border drawn in Pakistan and India are under dispute all the time. It was an empire that crumbled in the middle east. Someone had to draw borders and the most competent did.

As a native English speaker, albeit a product of public schools, I suffer the same difficulty as you do in regards to this word.

Perhaps the FAA made a mistake and intended to write peons.

That difference changes nothing about what i said.

A cyborg is a cyborg. You do not get to make up a definition in order to limit the discusion of it.

I purposely created a fictional scenarii in order to exempt bias but if you do not think it is theoreticaly possible, i suggest you pay more attention. They are recording brain waves as we speak in order to make prosthetics as transparent as possible. If they can relay and replay those signal to prothetics, it isn't unimaginable that it could be done for the real thing. And yes, science fiction has already done it.

Cannot speak for the op but the one time i was robbed (at gun point) , the police caught them (two people) and they admited to spending the money on drugs. I didn't interogate them at all, i was showed a recording by a victims advocacy representative and watch them admit to it during the questioning.

The interesting thing was the advocate asked my what i thought about them getting sentenced to rehab. I asked if that would be after they served the three years mandatory for the gun spec or before? The could have killed me, or if it was two hours earlier, i eould have been packing myself and i could have killed them or all of us could be dead. Thankfully, no one else was around so the possability of inovcent bystanders getting shot would have been low but still there. I can't belive they wanted to give them a slap on the wrist.