[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: paging tor bots



On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 13:43:12 +0300
Georgi Guninski <guninski@guninski.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 05:13:45AM -0300, juan wrote:
> > On Fri, 29 Jul 2016 10:45:57 +0300
> > Georgi Guninski <guninski@guninski.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > On Fri, Jul 29, 2016 at 02:42:40AM -0300, juan wrote:
> > > > https://blog.torproject.org/blogs/ssteele
> > > > 
> > > > "two additional people...are no longer involved with the Tor
> > > > Project."
> > > > 
> > > This is how free market work :PPPP
> > 
> > 
> > 	Military contractors have nothing to do with the free
> > market. 
> >
> 
> Are you sure about this? AFAICT you called them "security insurance"
> in the free market.

	I'm talking about the current kind of military contractors,
	which includes the tor project. 

	And what I said about insurance is that activities that
	currently are carried by the state/police can be replaced by
	insurace. As a matter of fact, even today the police doesn't do
	anything useful if you get robbed whereas if your stuff is
	insured you will get your money back.

	I don't think any kind of army belongs in a free society/free
	market so, no, no military contractors in a free market.


	Aaaaand, all this has nothing to do with the 'anonymous' firing
	done by the tor project anyway.

	
> 
> Anyway, I meant that in a free market (FM), you will still have
> corporations (possibly under more politically correct term like FM
> corporation).

	'corporations' are a legal fiction created by the state, so no.


 
> The boss of a FM corporation can fire whoever for whatever reasons
> (especially for critique of the FM corp and god forbid for disbelief
> of the current implementation of the FM).
  
> > 	
> > > 
> > > This reminds me how Mozilla screwed Brendan Eich (the creator of
> > > javascript) for a legal donation not related with his work.
> > 
> > > 
> > > > people without even naming them? I wouldn't like to imagine that
> > > > they have 'secret' 'nameless' employees? 
> > > >
> > > 
> > > Not exactly employees, but the bosses of their official bosses
> > > are not public IMHO (maybe few more levels of recursion are
> > > needed).
> > 
> > 
> > 	Ah, if you mean the pentagon pyschos whose cocks syverson
> > suck, right, those are 'anonymous'.
> > 
> > 	But the guys who just got fired are at the bottom of the
> > 	hiearchy/mafia.
> 
> OK, I wasn't clear enough (didn't bother to type for this trolling).
> 
> I meant the bosses of the grayhat Obomba (soon to be replaced by
> something visually whiter).