Bullshit. The Supreme Court damn well knows the 4th Amendment (and the rest of the Bill of Rights) should be interpreted broadly, so as to limit the government as much as possible. They just don't give a fuck because they're partisan, totalitarian bastards!
Why the Hell would Cuba give a damn about US patent law? With medicine it's typically the research that's the hard part, not the manufacturing, so all Cuba would have to do is get a copy of the patent (perhaps via an intermediary) and make the drugs itself.
Are you sure? There are actually two (possible) dialogs:
- One is a white-themed dialog with a header labeled with the Google Voice icon + "Google Voice", the choices "Call with Google Voice" and "Call without Google Voice", and a cancel button.
- The other is a black-themed dialog with a header labeled "Call" and the choices (on my phone) the CSipSimple icon + "[my VoIP number]" and the Dialer icon + "Use Mobile".
If your phone is set up the way I think it is, when making a call from Google Voice you'd see the first, white dialog. If you choose "Call without Google Voice" it would make a normal cellular call. If you choose "Call with Google Voice" it would still make a cellular call, but the number called would be Google Voice's number itself, whereupon it would then be routed through Google's servers and then to its destination. But it would still use cellular voice protocols between you and Google. (Your phone would report that it called the number you told it to call, but if you requested a call log from your cellular provider it should show you calling Google instead.)
If you try to dial out with Google Voice, it pulls up whatever app is registered to handle dialing phone numbers and makes a call with that. If you only have one such app -- e.g., the system Dialer app -- then it uses that and completes the call as a "real cellular call" using voice minutes. (On my device, it prompts me to choose between the system dialer and my VoIP app, but I only see the prompt because I have multiple programs to handle that intent.)
Try it when on Wi-Fi without a cellular connection and you'll see that it fails.
What I don't get is how a refusal to trade is a "human rights" issue. Nobody has a "human right" to force someone else to sell things to them (or to force someone else to buy their stuff).
There might be valid complaints about the embargo, but "human rights" isn't one of them.
Did you try reading the article you linked? Here's the first paragraph:
One of the most popular ways to make use of Google Voice on Android has long been GrooveIP. This app was able to route voice calls on a device through Google's free IP call service. Google finally ended third-party access to Google Voice yesterday, but GrooveIP was ready with an alternative.
The statement "Google ended third-party access" means it quit working, and that it did so because of Google, not any of the third-party developers!
How? By itself, it doesn't do VoIP.
O RLY? Okay then, explain why Groove IP and ObiTalk's Google Voice integration quit working at the same time! Surely Groove IP, at least, didn't do it out of greed since they told people to stop using their app at the same time...
Also provide a link to this mysterious "GVoice+" APK, because despite my quite decent web searching skills I couldn't find it and I don't believe it actually exists.
Yeah, it's almost as innocuous as the "National Socialist Workers' Party."
(But seriously, the point is that that "women's committee" might have really been innocuous for all I know, but there's no way to tell just from the name.)
The US government simply has acted like any other employer, in that it is selective in who it hires. What do you want them to do?
I want them to be a whole lot more restricted in what they can do than "any other employer," because they're not "any other employer," they're a goddamn government!
Governments should be held to a much higher standard than any natural person or private organization. There is no such thing as "equal rights" for governments; governments have no rights. Governments are always "guilty until proven innocent." Governments should not defend themselves -- governments should be the people's bitch. It is entirely reasonable for a government to be summarily dissolved by the governed, for any reason or no reason, with no recourse or argument. Anything otherwise is tyranny!
Okay, so that was a bit over-the-top, but I trust you got my point. More specifically, while the government should be allowed to be selective in terms of who it hires based on competency, it should not be allowed to be selective based on race, gender, age, political affiliation, favorite color, preference for vi vs. emacs or any other non-job-competency-related basis whatsoever.
Alright, so since EVERYONE MUST answer "yes" to that question just on the off chance that some random acquaintance might have done something at some point... in that case, WTF is the point of bothering to ask the question?
today we would look back at their ideals and even call some of those people "Republicans".
Are you sure you aren't thinking of "libertarians?" Today's Republicans like fascism.
Let me make the question a little clearer: "Have you ever belonged to an organization that is trying to kill me?" According to you, that's none of my business.
The difference is that it's a government, and you're not. Natural persons have a right to live; governments do not. If [a critical mass of] people are trying to overthrow a government, it's probably because it's become tyrannical and therefore deserves to be overthrown!
(Before you try to tell me I'm wrong, you should note that the Declaration of Independence uses exactly the same argument.)
I advocated a "revolution" by absolute and unflinching non-participation in all government interactions.... For many reasons, this became a giant mess for me and I ended up a target. It started off quite subtle and juvenile... but ultimately ended up with things that I do not believe were legal to do to a person in the least.
You don't want to interact with government, but you want it to provide legal protection to you?
the Libertarians or the Greens, which have completely opposite views on almost every issue.
On the contrary, the Libertarians and Greens agree on several fundamental principles:
- Free speech as an absolute right (i.e, no bullshit "free speech zones")
- Strong support for other civil rights (much stronger than the Democrats or Republicans, which are both authoritarian)
- Reduction in scope of Federal government / more localized control
- Non-aggressive / less interventionist foreign policy
- More inclusive ballot access / abolishment of rules that favor the two-party system
IMO, the two "major" parties have gone so far off the totalitarian/fascist deep end that the civil rights issue alone should be enough to sustain a Green-Libertarian coalition!