Slashdot Mirror

I don't know where you get the idea that "capital L" Libertarians support the constitution. Maybe these "Libretarian"s you speak of are a subtle variant of Libertarians.

The lowercased word, as found in your dictionary, means "a supporter of personal freedom".

The uppercased word means either a vague political movement or an American political party.

The names of political parties are mostly just branding- the dictionary definitions of "republican" and "democrat" have little to do with the partys' platforms- no moreso than products called "Zest", "Brawny", or "Coca-Cola" really describe what you're buying.

If you have some other definition of "Libertarian" beyond what is presented on those 2 websites, then I guess we're talking about something else, and you can stop reading here (but I suggest you stop using terms that others will misunderstand).

Now, Libertarian Party candidates might claim they support the Constitution- or rather that they will obey the Constitution, until such time (in a distant, imaginary future) when they have sufficient national majority to pass amendments to re-write it to their liking.

But if anything, they just support the first line of the Declaration of Independence, which is paraphrased on
their statment of principles. Reading that page, you can find this line in principle #2:

we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain

This is in conflict with a number of parts of the consitution, such as "Congress shall regulate commerce with foreign nations", or Amendment V,
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
which, by requiring it to be compensated, implicitly permits confiscation and eminent domain.

The copyright clause of the Constitution is also a form of "government interference with private property", and thus something Libertarians will oppose. If they consider "Intellectual Property" to be property, and covered under their principle, then the "for a limited time" statement amounts to a declaration of intent to eventually confiscated and nationalize said property. They won't support the Constition on that score.

Or, if a particular Libertarian decides "Intellectual Property is a fiction of the state, and my government will have no part of it", then there's principle #3: ...we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form

and platform #10:
We defend the rights of individuals to unrestricted freedom of speech,

That means they don't want the government telling you what you can't print. So then they don't want the government telling me that I can't reprint some author's works without his say-so.

Of course, "Libertarians" always support your right to abridge your own rights via contract. Which is why in a hypothetical Libertarian world, corporations would be able to write their own virtual-copyright law, in the form of a giant web of publisher-to-consumer contracts.

I could go on and on, and any of these principles and platforms could be argued either way, but the fundamental point is that just because something's in the US Constitution doesn't mean the Libertarian Party will support it. Whether that's good or bad is up to you.

I don't know where you get the idea that "capital L" Libertarians support the constitution. Maybe these "Libretarian"s you speak of are a subtle variant of Libertarians.

The lowercased word, as found in your dictionary, means "a supporter of personal freedom".

The uppercased word means either a vague political movement or an American political party.

The names of political parties are mostly just branding- the dictionary definitions of "republican" and "democrat" have little to do with the partys' platforms- no moreso than products called "Zest", "Brawny", or "Coca-Cola" really describe what you're buying.

If you have some other definition of "Libertarian" beyond what is presented on those 2 websites, then I guess we're talking about something else, and you can stop reading here (but I suggest you stop using terms that others will misunderstand).

Now, Libertarian Party candidates might claim they support the Constitution- or rather that they will obey the Constitution, until such time (in a distant, imaginary future) when they have sufficient national majority to pass amendments to re-write it to their liking.

But if anything, they just support the first line of the Declaration of Independence, which is paraphrased on
their statment of principles. Reading that page, you can find this line in principle #2:

we oppose all government interference with private property, such as confiscation, nationalization, and eminent domain

This is in conflict with a number of parts of the consitution, such as "Congress shall regulate commerce with foreign nations", or Amendment V,
nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
which, by requiring it to be compensated, implicitly permits confiscation and eminent domain.

The copyright clause of the Constitution is also a form of "government interference with private property", and thus something Libertarians will oppose. If they consider "Intellectual Property" to be property, and covered under their principle, then the "for a limited time" statement amounts to a declaration of intent to eventually confiscated and nationalize said property. They won't support the Constition on that score.

Or, if a particular Libertarian decides "Intellectual Property is a fiction of the state, and my government will have no part of it", then there's principle #3: ...we oppose all attempts by government to abridge the freedom of speech and press, as well as government censorship in any form

and platform #10:
We defend the rights of individuals to unrestricted freedom of speech,

That means they don't want the government telling you what you can't print. So then they don't want the government telling me that I can't reprint some author's works without his say-so.

Of course, "Libertarians" always support your right to abridge your own rights via contract. Which is why in a hypothetical Libertarian world, corporations would be able to write their own virtual-copyright law, in the form of a giant web of publisher-to-consumer contracts.

I could go on and on, and any of these principles and platforms could be argued either way, but the fundamental point is that just because something's in the US Constitution doesn't mean the Libertarian Party will support it. Whether that's good or bad is up to you.

People continue to mention the NRA, (who actually provides online service), in a negative light here. However, the NRA is probably the staunchest supporter of the Constitution, especially the First and Second Amendments.

I'll leave the Second Amendment out of this discussion, as this discussion is definitely a First Amendment issue.

It seems to me that the Democrats are most aligned to the anti-freedom agenda. Unless I am mistaken, all of the mentioned bills that actually became laws were signed by a Democratic president. Wait, don't mention all of the violations of my right to bear arms that he signed into law. Oh yeah, right, we aren't talking about the Second Amendment.

That Clinton signed these bills may be a mere conicidence though. I suspect that ignorance, (or maybe something much more insidious), rules the day with technology laws. Most of the people in office are older and because of that I think have a lesser understanding of technology. For God's sake, Al Gore thought he created the Internet!

Also, you'll notice that the DMCA, which is probably the most oppressive bill on the list had support from both Republicans than Democrats. You'll also notice that COPA had a much larger Republican sponsorship. I would say this was probably because their constituency is made up largely of religious zealots. All I can say is thats the part of the Republican party that reeks. Well, that and their environmental record.

In the end all of this comes down to freedom so I would urge you to support freedom in all flavors. You can't say "take their guns", but "I want to keep my speech". If you do, our rights will be whittled away one by one until we have nothing.
We must pay the price of freedom, responsibility for our own actions, and HARSH penalties for those who shirk reponsibility. The Republicans usually have that right.

All that aside, we are being sold out. Here's how:

The media, which is owned by big powerful companies is supposed to watch the government for abuses. However, the parent corporations of these media outlets have been pursuading our government toward abuse. Because of this the media has a huge conflict of interest. (This is obvious right?). This could be why we don't hear about these things on the nightly news.

Corporations are poised to steal our whole political process. They are doing a very good job of it already. All I ask you is, what have you done about it today?

Are there any issues that are universal in the Slashdot community besides what is pushed by the EFF, and GNU? (If even these are?) I known we are not all Libertarians. I'm not anway, and based upon other peoples comments, there are others who are not. However, how do you all feel about the first section first section, of the Libertarian Platform, entitled "Individual Rights and Civil Order"? You can reply here or email me about this directly. Maybe we can have a little more organization. I think that most of us here are pro electronic freedom and pro electronic privacy. What else matters? The link above describes much of what I believe. I remember reading it and saying, yeah, yeah, they've got it. Then I read the part on economics... ouch.

Thats my three cents.

-Craig

I became a Republican because I believe in the values of rugged individualism, less government, and more personal responsibility.

May I suggest the Libertarian Party?

Yep. The CA Libertarian Party has rescinded it's endorsement of the ballot candidate, and recommended a write-in for Art Olivier instead.

Yep. The CA Libertarian Party has rescinded it's endorsement of the ballot candidate, and recommended a write-in for Art Olivier instead.

Election is coming. Are those that don't want to pay taxes voting for the folks that raise them? Vote libertarian if you have a chance!!

doesn't gas its own citizens

Article II of the Genocide Convention also expressly prohibits
involuntary sterilization as means of "preventing births among" a
targeted population. Yet, in 1976, it was conceded by the
U.S. government that its ÒIndian Health ServiceÓ (IHS), then a
subpart of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), was even then
conducting a secret program of involuntary sterilization which had
affected approximately forty percent of all Indian women of
childbearing age. The program was allegedly discontinued, and the IHS
was transferred to the Public Health Service, but no one was
punished. Hence, business as usual has continued in the ÒhealthÓ
sphere: 1990, for example, it came out that the IHS was inoculating
Inuit children in Alaska with Hepatitis-B vaccine. The vaccine had
already been banned by the World Health Organization as having a
demonstrated correlation with the HIV-virus which is itself correlated
to AIDS. As this is being written, a Òfield testÓ of Hepatitis-A
vaccine, also HIV-correlated, is being conducted on Indian
reservations in the northern Plains region.

With both sides taking money from "The Enemy" my only option is to vote Libertarian. At least *someone* cares about the rights of the people.

Libertarians , on the other hand, are a bunch of independent SOBs who have trouble agreeing on enough issues to form a political party.

Unlike the members of the two major parties, we agree on nearly all major political issues, but we get hung up in the principles, like how many objectivists can dance on the head of a pin. Since we tend to care more about principles and purity more than actual achievement of practical goals, we tend to get bogged down without making progress.

I'd say that you agree on general principles, but not on "the issues". I think, though, that we're using the term "issues" differently rather than disagreeing in substance. I certainly agree that the Libertarian party runs into its biggest problems trying to come up with political positions on actual issues that appeal to a significant enough number of voters to win their support. (Well, outside of Colorado and the Silicon Valley, anyway.)

The Free State Project is a practical project that avoids detailed ideological discussions. Those are interesting, and they have their place, which is somewhere else.

But how likely is it that the supporters of this project will accomplish their goals? First, are they going to impose their views on the existing population to the extent that the existing population will react or choose to leave? That may be legal, but not getting along with your neighbors is NOT smart policy in most cases.

Second, just how long do you think a group of libertarians will be able to work together creating a "free state" before they disagree vehemently about some issue of principle, and split? From what I've seen, libertarians are just as prone toward schism as any other ideologically-driven group, and in addition often lack a strong sense of community or desire to stick together.

"Utopianism" is a primitive but common epithet.

"Primitive" in what way? It's a term out of the Renaissance and created by one of the great thinkers and writers of the Renaissance. That doesn't sound primitive to me.

It also isn't an epithet, at least as I use it. It's a description of a particular mindset that envisions creating a perfect or quasi-perfect society.

Communism was utopian ("let's change human nature!") but there is nothing utopian about wanting to reduce taxes, legalize drugs and prostitution, and adopt a neutral foreign policy.

That depends on how you define these things, and what you are willing to do to achieve them. The last one is especially problematic; there are a LOT of definitions of "neutral foreign policy" out there.

Those three things are already successfully in place in Singapore, The Netherlands, and Switzerland--nothing new or impractical about them.

Legalization of drugs is in place in Singapore? I think your information is a bit out-of-date on that one. <wry grin>

The shorter version: libertarians suffer from the same problems as Marxists. They've even got Rand to substitute for Lenin.

Libertarian != Objectivist. And even Objectivists don't meet my definition of a cult.

Since I was in a cult for ten years, though, I am perhaps a bit more careful about how I use the term than are others who haven't been touched by a cult. <wry grin>

Utopian thinking is one very common characteristic of cults, but it's also common outside of cults. There are plenty of people and groups who tend towards utopianism, but who don't use thought reform techniques or otherwise meet the usual criteria for being considered a cult.

I do consider a specific offshot of Objectivism called Neotech to be a cult. Objectivism itself contains a number of cultish elements, but I wouldn't term it a cult. It's just a group of people whose thinking is overly black and white and tends not to let the facts get in the way of a good theory.

Libertarians , on the other hand, are a bunch of independent SOBs who have trouble agreeing on enough issues to form a political party, let alone a cult. ;gt; Some libertarians annoy me, but cultists they ain't.

I see street-sweeping, electricity, etc. as one of the reasons for government.

This is how you were raised. Libertarians disagree with you, and have lots of statistics to bolster their arguments.

As Enron, and Colifornia have shown private companies cannot be trusted with basic infrastructure.

1. California energy crisis was/is a total sham. The government only reduced restrictions on the wholesale side of the energy pricing. When the energy costs went up, the energy companies couldn't raise the prices they charged consumers, so they went bankrupt. If anything, this bolsters the arguments of libertarians.

2. Enron is just one example of a bad company handling infrastructure. There are hundreds of counterexamples. And if in this free state an Enron-type situation were to arise, other companies would have to step in and take over for them, just like in the outside world.

And, as At&T, the RIAA, and AOLTW have shown eliminating all regulation is the best way to encourage monopolies.

First of all, monopolies are legal and not necessarily 'bad' as long as they were formed legally. Consider reading this document on the libertarian party's position on monopolies.

You can't just pick at certain elements like this without understanding more about libertarian ideals.

It's not just limited to the private sector.

Look at pensions/perks and associated abuses of elected employees - even after they have finished.Let's see (2 mins on google):

• US
• UK

They say that absolute power...dang I always forget that one...

Actually you don't necessarily...

Just vote Libertarian

"I have written this calendar software. I hereby demand that anyone who wishes to use this software pay me $50 for the right to use it. If you do not may me $50, you may not use my software."

Fair enough. But once I pay you $50 for the software, it becomes my software, and I'm free to give it away to my friends and family if I choose to do so.

At that point, my copy of the software is MY property, NOT yours. You have NO RIGHT to tell me what I can do with MY PROPERTY. Taking away the rights of people to use their own property in the manner they choose is called Communism, and I think history has proven very well (1 billion people murdered in a 50-year period) that it doesn't work.

How can you OWN something that you've already SOLD or GIVEN AWAY to SOMEONE ELSE? If you SELL it, it isn't YOURS anymore, it belongs to WHOEVER YOU SOLD IT TO.

I'm talking morally, not legally. The law hasn't yet caught up with morality.

Learn truth; don't be idiodic.

Do you also think all physical products should be free (beer and speech)?

I believe that once you own something, you should be free to do with it whatever you want (other than bashing someone in the head with it, or something violent of that nature, of course). It's wrong to tell someone else what they can and can't do with their own property. If I buy a copy of that song, that song is my property, just like if I buy a copy of a car, that car is my property, and I should be free to give it away or sell it to whoever I want!!!

I'm getting pissed off at your Communist-In-Capitalist-Clothing game. If this were Kuro5hin, I would give you a "1" or "0". This being Slashdot, all I can do is mark you as a "Foe".

Learn more about what I believe at The Ayn Rand Institute and The Libertarian Party. Read them, educate yourself, become a better person. And don't troll Slashdot.

I know, I know, I'm feeding the trolls. I guess I'm bored enough to humor them for a while longer.

My television has scarcity. There is only one of it. The same with my car. Only one of it. The same with my computer (well, actually, four of them rather than one, but still a finite number). Also, they are mine and you can't have them unless I give them to you. If I gave you my television, I wouldn't have one.

However, if I have an infinite number of televisions, and I sell an infinite number of them to your friend, and he gives an infinite number to you, what's the problem? I still have an infinite number of televisions, your friend has an infinite number of televisions and he obtained them in a moral way (buying them from me), and you have an infinite number of telivisions and you obtained them in a moral manner (your friend, who obtained them in a moral manner, gave them to you). What's the problem?

If I give you a copy of a song I write, it becomes YOUR property (morally, if not legally), and it would be morally wrong and Communistic of me to try to FORCE you to use it or not use your own new property in a certain way.

You should expand your mind and learn to care about freedom. You should start by visiting the Libertarian Party and learning why government interference in the private lives of consenting adults is BAD. Next, you should take The World's Smallest Political Quiz, sponsored by the Libertarian Party. Chances are, you may already have many Libertarian views! The transition to Libertarianism might not be as hard as you think. I used to be just like you until I learned to care about freedom.

Next, to learn about real Capitalism, not fake enforced-by-government-mandate capitalism (also known as Socialism/Communism), you should visit The Ayn Rand Institute. She's is, in many ways, the father of modern pro-capitalist anti-government-regulation thought. You should read her books, too.

Do these things, and you'll see the world from a different perspective. A *free* perspective.

No, it's convenience, but price plays a part in that. Sure it's inconvenient to go to the store (less so to find your selection in an online store), and inconvenient to work to make money -- but it's very inconvenient to pay fines or sit in the pokey for pirating.

OTOH, I find most copy protection loathsome. Stealing is a social problem, and technological solutions will always be imperfect. If I buy a game, I have the right to play it however I want. If I had to hack something to do it, I see nothing wrong with that. The consumer has rights. (And if enough people voted Constitution or Libertarian, those rights would get defended. But, more likely, people will keep voting for the Duopoly in power and we'll maintain the status quo.)

(Hey, Slashdot, why can't I enter entity references any more?)

This just seems like another example of the legislative reflex present in so many of our elected officials today. This law affects absolutely no existing coaster, so even if they had instituted this law prior to the deaths that triggered it, it couldn't have possibly prevented them. Besides, when it comes to safety on a roller coaster, I'd rather trust a team of engineers who design and build roller coasters for a living than some idiot career politician.

I can't see any purpose or necessity for this law except to reinforce the fact that "Big Brother Knows Best". This attitude seems practically pervasive with the American left (note the Democratic congressman championing these laws) and has unfortunately become more and more the standard attitude in the right.

Vote Libertarian, preserve your right to ride any damn coaster you see fit! ;-)

Fully verifiable is a big claim. I support OSS in every way, but I wouldn't ever claim that. How can you prove that the compiler wasn't trojaned? It's open source too? Well how about the compiler that compiled the compiler before it was self-sustaining? You'd have to trace it all the way back to whoever did the first compiler in the chain, by first compiler, I mean pure machine code. This isn't a new concept.

The bottom line is, you can never, ever have 100% security, ever. You can only get kinda close. I think in this case, paper is still the best bet, and we should forget about using technology for voting, it will inevitably make voting abuse a lot easier than it already is.

Of course, the government even goes as far as openly censoring the results of a vote they do not agree with.

As America Remembers 9/11/2001, we must remember that we live in a country based on freedom. Those freedoms are being threatened right now because of America's reaction to 9/11, and we have to be careful about that.

So please, as you mourn, see your friends and family, or watch TV all day (which I hope you don't do), try to remember what it is that we're fighting for in the first place, ok?

Without those freedoms in tact.. there's nothing left to fight for.

I love you guys, tho, and I'm glad it wasn't any of you who were lost a year ago :-)

Link for those that don't feel like using cut-n-paste

um, he's a Liber-tarian. he's as much against that as you are. try reading this and getting back to us.

This parody drug war ad is funny:

The Drug War

The only reason that buying drugs pays terrorists is becuase it's ILLEGAL. If it was LEGAL there wouldn't be a 17,000% markup. Libertarian Party

Thank the founders that this country is not a democracy, but a Constitional Republic. Of course, the liberals and conservatives of this country like to forget that.

Our Constitution was set forth in order to protect our God given rights from destruction by an insane majority. As you can now see, the insane majority is here.

I will only vote for those who push legislation for smaller government. In Illinois, we will have libertarians on almost every ballot position, and that's how I will make my statement.

Of course, if we do find more infrindgements on our liberties, I will be one of the first to move to Costa Rica, or another country where their freedoms are GROWING, and because those countries aren't fighting "wars on everything," the standard of living is just as high as it is here (for entrepreneurs), but the tax burden and liberty loss is less.

Don't accept this mess. Vote to end government/business orgies and socialist schemes -- VOTE LIBERTARIAN.

Try looking here.

... like the big guys in the RIAA and MPAA using their power and influence to shape laws for the protection fo their industry. We shouldn't have big corporations deciding how we use our computers.

Plus, I really think corporations should offer maternity leave, enough so that I think the government should intercede to provide tax incentives.

Hence, I am running for congress as a Libertarian, because only the Libertarians truly understand the way to deal with corporate power is to repeal every regulatory counterbalance imaginable.

In the end, The Market will cure all our ills.

Ok, I can't convince you anything about neofascist kooks, however the Libertarian Party does care about free speech. Check out these links.

The LP condemns the CBDTPA
The LP calls for Dmitry Sklyarov's release
This link quotes Harry Browne as saying "I believe we need to end limits on encryption." (Its about 2/3 down the page)

So yes, the libertarian party, as well as its leaders, does care about issues with technology and free speech.

Sigh. The predictable two-party system is continued, regardless of the number of parties.

Guess what! The Democrats and the Republicans both have significant influence from corporations
(as indeed you have said).

You should consider voting for a party that does not have such corporate influence such as the
Libertarian Party or the Green Party, or perhaps even an independant candidate.

Oh well, that won't stop people voting Republicrat.

Too many people have been brainwashed into believing that there are only two political parties.
Wake up! Democrat and Republican politicians will continue to abuse your rights while you let them
stay in power.

But, given the fact that we all NEED a Social Security card to WORK, a Drivers Licence to DRIVE, a ID to buy Cigerettes and Beer, why not have ONE ID?

I am a long standing Libertarian (As in lp.org, not liberal), and I am very for the National ID. Your kidding yourself if you really think that the ID is the problem. The ever expanding government is the problem, not some piece of plastic that makes it hard to counterfit an easier on my wallet weight!

and for the record, I'm not a full Libertarian, ONLY because I am isolationist, very much a Jeffersonian, as our founding fathers intended. I think the government fell apart with "the great FDR" who made us the world's policeman ... which the LP's "open borders" doesn't transision well into given the world culture now days.

How the hell did THIS crap get moded to +5 on ./? I thought much better of the readers and mods....

Libertarianism.

Didja see the spoof?

http://www.lp.org/issues/drugczarad.html

Go LP! :)

Read Atlas Shrugged, and vote Libertarian. You'll be glad you did.

Actually if we had a flat tax and full disclosure laws none of this would have ever happened. Spare me your liberalistic drivel. Go to http://www.lp.org and learn something.

To those Americans who are looking at this horrific action by our UK "friends" and thinking "Well, that will never happen here" .. wake up! If this country continues on its current course, rest assured that it most certainly will happen here. As long as people continue to vote for parties such as the Democrats, Greens, etc. you can expect things like this to happen here.

Vote either for the Republican or (preferably) Libertarian party if you want to see your country remain free, moral, and proud. The sons of bitches of Socialism will not win in this country.

This is a very common angle, you cant disagree, or you look like a criminal or support an action thats against the law(or bad behavior.)

We should anal probe everyone at airports to check for terrorists. What, do you want terrorists at the airports?!
(humm.)

Child protection enforcement should take children away from parents without court orders. Are you against child protection?
(No proof, No court Order, No Parents Rights.)

All guns should have trigger locks. Do you want children to shoot themselves? (Please Mr. Rapists, Please Wait why I unlock my gun..)

Marijuana is a gateway drug to cocaine. Do you want people to become crack addicts?

Death row inmates have had legal trials, there is no need to test DNS samples with new technology. Do you want to cost the public millions of dollars in court cases, make the courts too busy to put away criminals!! (DNA evidence has been destroyed in most cities, 3% of death row inmates are considered innocent....)

Criminals should loose their property, crime does not pay. It funds police forces to help fight crime! (Over 30 billion dollars in property a year is taken away from people never convicted of the crime accused. Property is never given back if the person is found innocent.)

List goes on, most of our media rams some persons view points down our throats on a daily basis. Much the majority of people take it for fact.
-
A Slashdot Political party, Over Here...

*bzzzzttt* wrong. try again.

When you said "eggregious" (sic) I think you meant "misleading" or "imaginary." They've made attempts at privatizing only parts, capped prices and haven't increased production. Capping prices has got to be the single worst thing you can do. Read this and this if you're interested in the truth behind CA's pseudo-deregulation.

You need a strong regulatory government to preserve free trade and competition, because the market naturally tends toward consolidation.

What the hell medication are you on? Trade is not free if you're regulating it strongly. It's like saying having a strong police-state results in the preservation of freedom. Beyond that odd statement, it seems like you're advocating the subsidy of failing/failed companies.

I think nationalization is the only intellegent way to go, since there is at least some accountability.

We don't need an Amtrak-like phone system. Two reasons: quality of service and innovation. Can you fathom a government beurocracy voluntarily giving up it's livelihood because the market demands have changed? Amrak is still going, even though it's losing money hand-over-fist and ridership is shit. Everyone's flying or driving or using Greyound... it's pointless.

It's staggering to realize the number of people killed in the 20th century by their own governments. Clearly we need less government, not more. At least the Constitution and Libertarian parties are supplying that option in the US.

...which is why you should fight asset forfeiture.

One option is to vote Libertarian in November:

http://www.lp.org/lpnews/0103/forfeiture.html

includes examples, including this one: "a woman accused of shoplifting a $25 sweater had her $18,000 car -- specially equipped for her handicapped daughter -- seized as the 'getaway vehicle.' " [USA Today]

(so maybe it's shameless plugging, but at least it's *informative* shameless plugging. ;)

You are exactly right and that is why "Small Government is beautiful" to borrow a phrase from Carla Howell.

If you are not already you should be a memeber of the LP party

--------

Make it a great day!

Here is the link to TI's Tech Page on DLP technology

The biggest array that advertise on the product page is 1280x1024 (that is item #1.1SXGA SDR)
Here are the spec:
Diagonal:
1.1"
Array:1280x1024
Mirror:17um
Tilt:10 deg.

---
You do have a choice besides the "Republicrats and Demicans." Join the LP and work for smaller government and less taxes.

Because one of the governments' prime responsibilities is to 'protect and serve'. Even if you believe it's not the governments' place to raise a child (and it's not), you can at least acknowledge the fact that poorly raised children are more likely to be dangerous (or irresponsible) adults.

This is why they are (or should be concerned). IMO the government has no business meddling in this regard, especially since they can't even do public schooling properly yet...

But what do I know... I vote moderate Libertarian.

NRA: I don't know who is more dangerous - the gun nuts, or the nuts who want to ban all guns, lol.

Institute for Justice: Never heard of them before.

EFF ACLU: I really should send these guys checks.

Libertarian: They are great allies on many of our issues, but if you look deeper they have some real scarry positions. Like getting rid of the FDA, eliminiating licencing for doctors, and selling off all public land to finance all sorts of radical changes. Not only are they opposed to the Microsoft anti-trust case, they want to eliminate the anti-monopoly laws. The Libertarians have some real good ideas, but in my oppinion they take them to unreasonable extremes.

-

• Envy and Righteousness. Starting sometime in the early 20th century, the unsuccessful started believing that they were owed something by the successful. The turning point was FDR's New Deal, which was the birth of Big Government in the United States.
  
  And you do it too. Every time you say, "I wish the federal government would just regulate <foo>" or "I can't believe those ball players/lawyers/neurosurgeons make so much money," you're demonstrating envy and righteousness. Realize that if you think someone you don't know owes you something just because of your circumstances or his, someone else thinks the same about you. Realize that if you have the power to take away another's liberties, he has the power to take away yours. The only way to combat this is to deny government the power to forcibly take away any of our liberties.
  
  
• Inaction. Citizens who are concerned about the ever-expanding powers of our Big Government complain and complain and complain, but then continue to vote for the GOP (or, I suppose for the Democrats, though I definitely can't figure that one out) are just another part of the problem. Read my lips: The GOP is NOT a small-government party anymore! They have become addicted to your money just as the Democrats have, and now see the benefit to themselves of increasing the reach of the federal government.
  
  If you're not voting Libertarian, donating to the EFF, the ACLU or the Institute for Justice, and the NRA, your complaints about big government taking away all your freedoms one-by-one is pointless blather.
  

The surplus was projected, it didn't exist yet.

Untrue. We had not had deficit spending since 1997.

Ahh, A lie repeated time and again without any source. Well here is your source, The Office of Managment & Budget from the table Historical Tables, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2003 (2.1MB .pdf)

Here is a portion of the data, but basically it shows that there never was a "surplus" as the federal debt has been increasing ever year since 1957.

From the Office of Management and Budget

The Gross Federal Debt
7.1--FEDERAL DEBT AT THE END OF YEAR: 1940-2007--Continued
End of Fiscal Year
In Millions of Dollars As Percentages of GDP
Gross Federal Debt

1985 1,817,521
1986 2,120,629
1987 2,346,125
1988 2,601,307
1989 2,868,039
1990 3,206,564
1991 3,598,485
1992 4,002,123
1993 4,351,403
1994 4,643,691
1995 4,921,005
1996 5,181,921
1997 5,369,694
1998 5,478,711
1999 5,606,087
2000 5,629,016
2001 5,770,256

------
Only one party is really looking to reduce this, the Libertarian Party

Randy Overbeck

The surplus was projected, it didn't exist yet.

Untrue. We had not had deficit spending since 1997.

Ahh, A lie repeated time and again without any source. Well here is your source, The Office of Managment & Budget from the table Historical Tables, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2003 (2.1MB .pdf)

Here is a portion of the data, but basically it shows that there never was a "surplus" as the federal debt has been increasing ever year since 1957.

From the Office of Management and Budget

The Gross Federal Debt
7.1--FEDERAL DEBT AT THE END OF YEAR: 1940-2007--Continued
End of Fiscal Year
In Millions of Dollars As Percentages of GDP
Gross Federal Debt

1985 1,817,521
1986 2,120,629
1987 2,346,125
1988 2,601,307
1989 2,868,039
1990 3,206,564
1991 3,598,485
1992 4,002,123
1993 4,351,403
1994 4,643,691
1995 4,921,005
1996 5,181,921
1997 5,369,694
1998 5,478,711
1999 5,606,087
2000 5,629,016
2001 5,770,256

------
Only one party is really looking to reduce this, the Libertarian Party

Randy Overbeck

The real problem here is that our government is so powerful that it is allowed to collect such information on us in the first place. Look, people: it's an intelligence organization. Once they have the information, they are unaccountable to anyone as to what they do with it. There is no public oversight of the FBI, because that would violate "national security."

So, you think, "I'm not so important. The FBI isn't coming after me." Repeat the litany about not speaking up for the Jews, etc. and realize that this particular abuse is only one of countless ways in which our too-powerful federal government violates our rights on a daily basis.

Don't be so quick to give up rights you don't exercise: instead, think of what kinds of rights you exercise that the majority might not care about (fair use, use of strong cryptography, etc.), and realize that if you have the ability to surrender their rights, they have the ability to surrender yours.

Do you want small government? Join the Libertarian Party.

I'm sick of this. Where do I point my gun at to get my God-given rights?

Try these guys:
Libertarian Party

Hell yeah! Though technicaly, you should have linked to the libertarian part website. Here it is.

And for those who care to, please /. <a href="http://flame.dnsart.com/">my website.</a>

I thank you for your time, and your web traffic.