Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re: Free market (Score 1) 256

by AK Marc (#47753629) Attached to: When Customer Dissatisfaction Is a Tech Business Model
Having been born in Texas, the only union members I ran across on a regular basis were teachers, who were banned by law from even threatening to strike. I've lived elsewhere in the US, and they were more like Texas than the union utopias I hear described.

Try asking a set electrician to help move a prop like a chair and see how much of a slave these guys are.

I ask IBEW members in Alaska to do that, and they say yes, with a smile. Just because everyone's an asshole to you (wonder why), doesn't mean they are to everyone.

Where are you where everyone's in a union? Given the movie example, I'd lean towards CA, but I've worked with grad students and didn't run across any unions there.

Comment: Re:Define torture (Score 1) 102

by AK Marc (#47744817) Attached to: Ross Ulbricht Faces New Drug Charges
Then give me a definition of torture, so we can see what fits yours.

The original definition, as it was used in the Inquisition, would include taking away her iPad if she didn't do what you wanted (like clean her room). Threatening to kill her if she didn't perform sex acts with you would be "torture"? Or would you dispute that one as well? Then let's "lessen" the punishment and act demanded, and see where you draw the line.

But then, older definitions of slavery would still come close to applying to minors in the USA (with the exception that there's a fixed term, so it's more like indentured servitude), as indentured servitude was considered "slavery".

Comment: Define torture (Score 2, Insightful) 102

by AK Marc (#47744161) Attached to: Ross Ulbricht Faces New Drug Charges
Torture is violence or the threat of violence to extract a result. Prison is violent, so threats of prison are threats of violence.

Adding on more charges is to play the game of "we'll get you on something, so if you don't confess to this small list, we'll send you away to prison for a long time." That's threats of violence to get a result. So this is all a game of legal torture.

Cause harm and threaten harm until you get a confession, regardless of the guilt of the people involved. That's the American Way.

Comment: Re:Mandatory panic! (Score 1) 415

by AK Marc (#47743635) Attached to: South Carolina Student Arrested For "Killing Pet Dinosaur"

Before the 20th century, "world wars" were mostly impractical because it took so damn long to get anywhere. Months to cross the Atlantic, more months to cross the Pacific, much less to do the fighting when you got across, that sort of thing....

Yes, but before 1492, "World Wars" were common, but only involved Eurasia/Africa. The one continent where someone could theoretically walk from South Africa to France to China without ever getting your feet wet, though in practice, boats across the Aegean and Mediterranean were much easier than walking. And, for a while, every England vs world (France and Spain) was a world war. The Crusades were World Wars, even if East Asia didn't really care.

Comment: Re:Mandatory panic! (Score 1) 415

by AK Marc (#47743625) Attached to: South Carolina Student Arrested For "Killing Pet Dinosaur"

The problem with that statement is that England does not have any armed forces. The Royal Air Force is British, The Royal Navy is British and even specifically regionally English army units are in the British army.

Should I presume the British forces to belong to Britain (England and Wales) or Great Britain? Or are UK forces called British, even if not from or based in Britain?

I was under the assumption that the UK armed forces, whatever they are called, are roughly proportionally staffed by member kingdoms, making English, what, 80% of the population of the force?

An army that's 90%+ English wouldn't be unreasonably called "English".

Comment: Re:Mandatory panic! (Score 1) 415

by AK Marc (#47740439) Attached to: South Carolina Student Arrested For "Killing Pet Dinosaur"
Yeah, and we've gotten to the point that with the Guard holding "real" tanks and things like fighter jets, and the police with APCs and such, we have a domestic military capable of repelling the entire world, should the entire world declare war tomorrow. The military is surplus, and should be eliminated, saving trillions we can use to pay down the debt. If we paid off the debt and eliminated the military, we could cut Federal income tax in half, and increase services.

But no, being able to kill foreign dictators because they sell oil in Euros, not Dollars, is worth bankrupting the country and destabilizing the world.

The biggest mistake you can make is to believe that you are working for someone else.

Working...