Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Help me please (Score 1) 7

by smitty_one_each (#48465547) Attached to: [TCM] Manifesto reading part 4

Marx wanted to see the people who actually do things receive a better part of the pie and a better chance at their own destiny.

tl;dr: capitalism.

Marx's opposition in regards to private property lied in its runaway accumulation and how it aided in the oppression of workers, but he did not oppose private property on its own.
To ask such a binary question is absurd, really.

We're dancing around who owns the definition of "runaway accumulation". And it's not an absurd question. As this country has drifted in the collectivist direction, the system has been increasingly set against traditional private property notions. It would be silly to call the SCOTUS "Marxist", but I'd say that the overlap in the thinking between the two is slowly increasing. The idea that there is any federal basis for screwing around with individual education, housing, health care, retirement, &c is totally due to the Progressives.

Comment: Re:Moderate BS (Score 1) 1007

by ScentCone (#48464379) Attached to: Officer Not Charged In Michael Brown Shooting
So all of your fuss about having someone else do your work for you, challenging is just you looking for a meaningless fight?

I never said that there were no eyewitnesses

You just doubt that the grand jurors listened to eye witness testimony from the half dozen in question (out of the 60 witnesses they heard from) that actually told them what they needed to hear. Yes, they heard from LOTS of other witnesses who had anything from minor variations to outright debunked fabrications to share, but - as the prosecutor seeking charges against Wilson said - they heard from a consistent, corroborated core of media-averse African American witnesses who told the tale you don't want to hear.

Heck, one eyewitness says that the cop shot him execution style in the head at point blank range.

Why are you focusing on the known liars? What's the point? We all know that dozens of people reported pure BS in order to get attention or while grinding some I-hate-police axe or the like. I'm not mentioning those people because, just like the grand jury concluded, their testimony was anywhere from muddle-headed to outright fiction-for-malice's sake. You're the only one who cares what the liars had to say. But they're irrelevant. It's the physical evidence and the credible witnesses that it corroborates that count. And speaking of counting, you're still not finding it comfortable enough to count all fingers on one hand, and move on to the next hand? Really? Or should we just right back to your opening complaint, the implication of doubt and dismissal about their testimony because you hadn't bothered to read it?

Comment: Re:My interpretation (Score 1) 13

by smitty_one_each (#48464015) Attached to: Kevlar Kandidate Kicks Himself

When you evaluate a democrat you insist that they spend their free time conspiring to impose a new world fascist regime

More accurately, I point out that more legislation == less freedom.

when you evaluate a republican you insist that they spend their free time working at soup kitchens and building orphanages.

I find out the most remarkable things about my actions from you.

Comment: Re:Deliberate (Score 1) 534

by sumdumass (#48463919) Attached to: Two Google Engineers Say Renewables Can't Cure Climate Change

We've been doing renewables and efficiency for almost 50 years. How much longer till we can reach that goal?

Yes, i said it. We are close to the limits of renewables and efficiency. Unless there is a major discovery, we will only see minor improvements that will likely be outpaced by population growth and lifestyle improvements with poorer people. I think progress will outpace the efforts.

Comment: Re:Go back in time 5 years (Score 1) 566

by sjames (#48463835) Attached to: Debian Votes Against Mandating Non-systemd Compatibility

I would say a complete inability to mount a degraded btrfs (which figures heavily in future plans) is hardly some obscure bug.

As for use something else, that's my intention. I gave systemd it's shot and it failed miserably. A bug like that shows that they aren't even trying to make the thing robust.

The question I asked about a workaround is a fairly fundamental thing to not know about systemd. That is, how to get it to run something needed to meet dependencies and how to get it to not run something.

The speed of anything depends on the flow of everything.