Slashdot Mirror
Pentagon Clears Flying-Car Project For Takeoff
unassimilatible writes "DARPA has announced a 'Personal Air Vehicle Technology' project. It will 'ultimately lead to a working prototype of a military-suitable flying car — a two- or four-passenger vehicle that can "drive on roads" one minute and take off like a helicopter the next. The hybrid machine would be perfect for "urban scouting," casualty evacuation and commando-delivery missions, the agency believes.' Wired has the summary of the project."
Maybe they'll take inspiration from Terrafugia's "drivable airplane."
This reminds me of a book I was flipping through earlier this evening at a local bookstore, Daniel Wilson's Where's My Jetpack? , a "A Guide to the Amazing Science Fiction Future That Never Arrived". Popular Mechanics has been promising that a flying car is right around the corner for half a century now. It's not here, and I've given up all hope.
So DARPA finally hired a crazy German scientist with a foot fetish?
With enough explosives altitude won't be a problem but distance and landing may be an issue.
The world will never have a flying car for the general public.
Most of you fuckers shouldnt even be allowed to drive on the roads.
Here's a real flying car. At 80mph, it doesn't have the airspeed that DARPA is looking for but it does hit all the other check items and supposedly it's easy to fly.
Perhaps this why the White House is so resistant to bailing out the Auto Industry.
I'm not sure I follow you on that...if the design is worked out, tests well, and is approved, eventually they will need someone with the manufacturing infrastructure and know-how to build them. The auto industry would be a likely candidate. After all, they're not exactly making a ton of money cranking out SUVs lately, and their skilled labor will need the work!
The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...
Yeah, it couldn't possibly be that bailing out the auto-industry is a really stupid idea. Granted, that didn't stop them from being gung-ho about the Wall St. bailout, but at least they're limiting their stupidity a little bit. Just because they fucked up in one case doesn't mean we should throw up our arms and insist they be stupid all around.
But if you have a good reason why the auto industry should be able to take my money without earning it, I'd love to hear it.
Even the "They provide jobs" argument is ridiculous, because they provide jobs building products nobody wants to buy.
Also funny how it's the Democrats pushing for the auto bailout, but its the Republicans who are always accused of being in cahoots with corporations.
Maybe not
"Maybe they'll take inspiration from Terrafugia's "drivable airplane."
I don't think so. With Terrafugia you have to drag your wings behind you and put the thing together when you want to take off, complete with standard runway. It takes a few minutes to transition from a land vehicle to an airplane. These guys are talking about instant transition. One second you're driving on the ground and the next you are airborne.
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
Don't be silly. This is far too small a project to interest the White House.
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
Where is my flying.. errr. ummm..
Oooo shiny object to the left.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Hack a day has a much better looking flying car..
http://hackaday.com/2008/11/13/flying-cars-a-reality/
What about an autogyro?
Relatively few moving parts, has good STOL capabilities and easily compacted if the blades can be folded.
Just let us go back to 1950. 2050 is too damned scary.
So, every few years I take a look at www.moller.com and see what's up. For the past 10 years (maybe longer), they've been 2 years away from delivering a product. It looks great. Has stats that aren't bad at all. It just doesn't exist. Hopefully Moller is less of a kook than he sounds like, and he'll enter this, get more funding, and finish off the car he's had 10,000 years in the making. I'd buy one.
Learn to love Alaska
Will it have a "valmorphanize" button?
Run and catch, run and catch, the lamb is caught in the blackberry patch.
Forgive me, I didn't follow the links.
When I see 'DARPA', 'will ultimately lead to', 'prototype', 'would be perfect for', etc; I just sigh and consider the last few seconds to be a lost part of my life.
I've been reading since the early '50s about the imminent personal flying craft and similar wonders in such august publications as PopSci, Popular Mechanics, etc. I grow weary.
...omphaloskepsis often...
Personal automated air transport should not be that tough.
All the components that are required to build a pilotless VTOL aircract are readily available. For example:
If the cost could be brought below 400K upfront and <20K annually to run. I'd buy one in a heartbeat.
BTW Moller is a charlatan, and convicted fraudster. I have alot of venom for conmen like this who set back social progress by displacing R&D money from real inventors. How has that jerk not been stripped of his UC-Davis associate professorship?
I believe the flying vehicle itself is neat idea, no doubt about that. But it is another variation for airplane and helicopter and flying car is being researched by many organizations already. and must bigger challenge is not the car itself. DARPA should consider focusing its research on building infrastructure for personal flying vehicle for the mass. that means that, if necessary, all the vehicle should run autonomously and controlled and monitored solely by central computer system, much alike commercial airplanes. Flying vehicles are out there. Just yet, we don't have ,first, infrastructure(road, central system), safety standards for the vehicle and effective and cheap mass driving(piloting) education. I believe we already have a lot of it for the commercial airplanes. but challeges are still there. flying a flying machine is difficult so that it should be far more easier to fly than what we have today and at least everything should be automatic. That means computer should fly t. but in order to do that we need very very accurate Geo-positioning System mixed with some vision recognzing system when it flies through cities. or in the city, where there are tall buildings and obstacles, human can fly it themselves for safety. In the big cities like newyork, i think flying is not safe at all.but it should work great in less crowded cities with few skycrapers. For the small scale, military operation, flying vehicle would be effective if it is cheap and safe.
It's not so much the jobs they're providing (though GM does employ a small country worth of people), but all the people who live off pensions from them. Company goes down, the pensions disappear, and guess who is now paying more social security to all those people.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
The secret is the Mr Fusion Home Energy Reactor! Just throw some banana skins and beer cans into it and you're off!
"Also funny how it's the Democrats pushing for the auto bailout, but its the Republicans who are always accused of being in cahoots with corporations. "
There are two reasons your snide remark is wrong.
1. The auto makers provide benefits (pensions, health care) to many many current and former employees (which is part of why they're currently screwed). So this is essentially about protecting the people who rely on the companies, not the companies themselves.
2. Auto-maker empoyees are the epitome of "middle america", as is the focus for the democrats. Wall street is bankers and traders etc, which is hardly the man on the floor - the traditional focus of the republicans is "other rich people".
I have spoken'eth.
Maybe a better bailout would be to give the public big rebates when they buy cars.
Here in Australia they are just about to throw the public large sums of money, in the order of $1000/child, to 'stimulate the economy'. I guess the idea is that we'll all go and buy plasma TV's with it...
We have 4 kids, and sure could use the money, but I really think that there would be better ways of stimulate the economy... big rebates on locally imported goods or something.
I suspect a good deal of the money will be spent on gambling, cigarettes, and alcohol, all of which are highly taxed, so the government will probably see most of the money back again pretty quickly anyway.
I really don't think they thought it through.
I've been reading since the early '50s about the imminent personal flying craft and similar wonders in such august publications as PopSci, Popular Mechanics, etc. I grow weary.
Yeah.
But I've also been reading about flat TV screens for as long, too. (They had a cute one back then: Neon switches, crosspoint matrix, electroluminescent elements at the crosspoints for scan, then transparent conductor, opaque light-controlled-resistor, and another layer of electroluminescent matterial for the screen light source. Plastic "circuit board" so you could wrap it around a pencil.)
It took 'em half a century to get (several types of) TV quality flat screens. And they're all STILL more expensive than CRTs. (Maybe now that the LCD price fixing conspiracy is broken that will FINALLY change.)
Ditto "dynabook". Ditto microscopic robots - some circulating in the blood stream - for microsurgery and/or immune system assist against diseases. Ditto cloned replacement teeth. Ditto age-retarding-or-reversing drugs.
A lot of stuff is FINALLY STARTING to happen. But I've been waiting a LONG time for it. And at this rate maybe I'll get to see prototypes of some of it by the time I retire, but still won't get the benefit of playing with the toys. B-(
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
DARPA's mission is to prevent technological surprise for the United States and to create technological surprise for its adversaries.
Short, simple, unambiguous. If there were awards for objective statements, this would get one. Would that all my projects were so well defined!
I'm a Programmer. That's one level above Software Engineer and one level below Engineer.
I hope you are correct. I saw it more a long the lines like General Petraus's recent promotion that will probably end on Jan 20 and so forth.
or how about this: keep the factories, keep the workers, keep the engineers, and keep the rest of the manufacturing infrastructure, but get rid of the CEOs, VPs & board members and their multi-million-dollar-per-year pensions & severance packages. you can also do away with most of the upper management along with the marketing, advertising, and sales departments.
just because the manufacturing infrastructure is useful doesn't mean the corporate baggage is. they're the reason why the domestic auto industry even needs a bailout right now. they're also the ones who've got to keep their lush salaries and corporate benefits while factories are shut down and workers laid off.
just because a business dies doesn't mean the skilled labor and infrastructure suddenly evaporates. you could nationalize the companies and just keep the factories and main workforce, or you could just let other (perhaps smaller) companies buy up bits and pieces of the defunct company. there are many alternatives to a government bailout, which basically removes all accountability for poor business practices, decisions, and corporate policies.
if they fuck up so badly that they need a bail out, just let someone else have a shot at running the domestic auto industry, preferably some newcomers who will break up the current oligopoly and lower the barriers to entry. this way you have greater diversity of car manufacturers, which means greater selection of choices for consumers. and an industry comprised of lots of smaller companies competing equally instead of being dominated by 3-4 big companies is also more conducive of technological innovation and original thinking.
it would serve the interest of the public much more if, rather than handing the Big Three free money, the federal government instead gave the money to smaller more technologically innovative companies like Tesla Motors and let them take over the manufacturing infrastructure not being used by Ford, Chrysler, and GM. if anything, government subsidies should be given to the new underdogs that are bringing innovation and reviving the domestic auto industry, not the monolithic reactionary Big Three auto makers that have been dragging the industry down.
That is a good point but with the bailout we are paying it anyways. So we can either pay now(bailout), or pay later(Social Security or other Gov. support). Either way we are gonna pay. I think a bigger problem is not that the auto industry goes down, but all the industries that the auto industry does business with will be hurt. It has the potential to stretch way beyond those union voters and corporate overlords.
All points of time and space are connected.
Pensions have been dished off to the unions already, and are (IIRC) federally-backed anyway.
Social Security payouts have nothing to do with pension income - they are the same regardless.
Fact is, the downfall of GM means depression conditions for a while in the Midwest. Since many (most?) of GM's suppliers would go belly-up as well, and because those same suppliers handle Ford an Chrysler, you'd see Chrysler and maybe Ford bite the dust, too. I think GM should be bailed out, but we taxpayers should get a large stake in it.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
You know you can invest in GM using your own money, right? You'll even get a stake in it proportional to what you invest.
I don't want a stake in GM, and I don't think you, or anybody else, should be able to force me into helping you buy one.
Maybe not
If they still can't produce a practical jetpack with extended flying time, i see this... not taking off!
No words of wisedom here.
why not just vtol or a helicopter on wheels? the propellers could fold up or down as needed or the vtol could face forward for thrust but put wheels on the vehicle.
Why exactly do we need to spend government money on flying cars that will most likely burn a lot more fuel than our current gas guzzlers? Because some dork in the defense department thinks the 1950's are still cool?
Put the money into something more practical for this century - like developing an electric car that's affordable and doesn't suck.
ibid.
expandfairuse.org
For mil use it's probably better to farm these out to the companies that build the tanks and planes the army uses instead of getting a manufacturer who's only experienced with civilian requirements.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
I think the hope is that after a one-time payment the industry gets back on its feet and pays the rest of the cost itself (while also generating tax revenue that would eventually make up for the bailout) instead of having the tax payer pay for it until the pensioners are dead.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
So how is corporate welfare for small innovative companies any different than corporate welfare for big traditional companies? If Tesla motors suddenly was handed the "manufacturing infrastructure" of "Ford, Chrysler, and GM", they would, in order to be able to manage it, need to incorporate the management structure of Ford, Chrysler and GM too. Which would mean that the plan failed.
We simply disagree. I think that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and while I'd prefer to stick with a purely market-based economy I won't be dogmatic in a crisis situation. Ideology has to make way for pragmatism sometimes.
The bailout is going to happen no matter what - there are too many interested parties. My "ownership stake" comment was meant to blunt the impact to taxpayers, not as an argument for nationalizing the industry.
Anyway, the fact is that GM is on the right path, but no business can plan for all the hits that they took at once. I think that the taxpayers will come out ahead in the long term if the bailout is structured correctly.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
I don't care what company you are or what business you're in, managers don't need to be paid hundreds of thousands of dollars while the rest of the business has to lay off thousands of workers in order to pay them.
Planet Zebeth - Metroid with a twist
...terrorists will apply for driving licenses, not aircraft ones!!!
assuming the aerodynamics of a brick.
In any case, you're lucky if its a landing you can walk away from.
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Pentagon Clears Flying-Car Project For Takeoff
Why not "Flying-Car Project Starts to Gain Real Traction at Pentagon"?
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
This is what you get: http://thefutureofthings.com/pod/1012/gyrocopter-to-the-rescue.html
NZ Electronics Enthusiasts: Check out my Trade Me Listings
And I completely disagree with you. Your opinion isn't inherently more worthy than mine. You don't get to violate people's rights simply because *you* think it would be best.
Yes, I do. We live in a democratic republic. You can work on changing that if you'd like, but for now the majority certainly can deprive you of property if they get the itch.
Who even gets to decide that?
I presume this is rhetorical?
Gee, nice of you to compromise on violating other people's rights.
Wasn't me - I don't know who gets credit for inventing taxes, but it was a long time ago.
And what gives you that idea? The taxpayers in the USSR, Cuba, North Korea and East Germany seemed to get screwed in the long term. I'm curious why you think we'll be better off.
You know what else the USSR, Cuba, North Korea, and East Germany had in common? Authoritarian rule. Are you really saying that their socialist policies were the major problems with those countries?
And, by the way, you left China off of that list... I wonder why?
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
With the automakers, as with the financial institutions, the vast majority of retirement expense dollars go to the upper-level management types - I feel no need to see my tax dollars funding golden parachutes when my own silk needs mending.
Take the 90-Day Challenge! http://rwmurker.bodybyvi.com/
For hundreds of years the majority of people thought slavery was okay, too. That doesn't make it right.
So are you claiming that a democratic republic is like slavery? Or were you just using it as an example of a moral wrong that has nevertheless existed for a long time. If the latter, than I won't dispute it - though I have to point out that it's kind of wasting our time to say something so obvious.
Well, no point trying to fix it now! It was somebody else's idea! It must be okay!
I wasn't trying to make that argument, and I suspect you know that. You seemed to be saying that I was "compromising" by going along with taxation and that somehow compromising is a bad thing. It's not. Taxation is a compromise that has been happening for pretty much the entire existence of humanity - or at least since agriculture made protection of land important to our survival. Taxation can be abused such that the subjects are in virtual slavery. It can also be used for the common good, like defense. Not everything is so black and white.
You really want us to become more like China?
Certainly not, but it is an example that runs counter to your point. The people in China suffer primarily through political oppression - not as a result of taxation. In fact, their model is currently quite successful - though nothing can be said of the long-term.
Authoritarian governments go hand in hand with socialist/communist economic systems
That's true, but that doesn't extrapolate to socialism inevitably leading to authoritarian rule. Most of Western Europe is socialist, but not authoritarian - and has been for 50 or 60 years.
And yes, taking my money and giving it to GM because you think they need it more is a violation of my property rights.
Yup. You can keep restating this and I'll keep agreeing. My argument is that it is warranted, not that I'm taking away your rights - which to me is blatantly obvious. The important thing is that there be an inclusive democratic process when taking people's property rights away.
And yes, I'd like to see the democratic process revised somewhat - something like instant runoff voting to protect minority interests better.
And what about my plan on making GM employees work for free?
Rhetorical?
If you're going to advocate slavery you might as well make it explicit.
I don't advocate forced labor. However, I do advocate forcibly taking people's property for the common good (most people just say "taxes", btw). There is a difference, even if you disagree with both.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
I was using it as an example where "the majority" was clearly in the wrong.
But that is the argument you were making. "We've always done this, so it must be okay." And by saying "not everything is so black and white", you're admitting that one option is better than the other, and then saying we should still do a little of both anyway. That doesn't make any sense. Why do both when we know one option is better?
Also, I'm not saying we should get rid of taxes. I don't mind paying taxes for some stuff, like defense, police and the courts. What I'm not okay with is redistributing the money to other people and claiming they just need it more than I do. Why should I have to suffer so that some other people can supposedly be better off? How can you claim you're doing it for the "common good" when your plan involves knowingly making some people worse off?
And my argument is that taking away people's rights is never warranted, no matter what process is behind it.
No, it wasn't. If anybody is going to pay the price for GM screwing up, why not the GM employees who screwed up?
Yes you do. You want GM to get the output of other people's labor, by force and against their will. Sounds like forced labor to me.
Maybe not
I was using it as an example where "the majority" was clearly in the wrong.
You're example has a flaw - a nation with slavery cannot be called a democracy. There were more blacks than whites in Mississippi at the time of the US Civil War, yet only the whites got to vote. That's not democracy - even majority rule was not applied.
Anyway, I'd never argue that democracy is perfect. Simple majority rule will always leave under-represented groups feeling disenfranchised and won't work long term. But personally I'd rather be at the mercy of the majority than a single fickle ruler or ruling class.
"We've always done this, so it must be okay."
That isn't my argument at all, and I have either failed in my writing or you in your reading. I'm justifying taxes on their own merits, and simply pointing out that they are not in the least bit controversial.
Why do both when we know one option is better?
Because there's an ideal to work towards, and then there's what you do when cold, hard reality kicks you in the face. For example: Thou shalt not kill. Good ideal, terribly complicated in practice.
Also, I'm not saying we should get rid of taxes. I don't mind paying taxes for some stuff, like defense, police and the courts.
So you'll compromise your ideals and deprive money of their property for your own priorities?
I guess we're back to deciding on what priorities are worthy of tax money and which aren't.
And my argument is that taking away people's rights is never warranted, no matter what process is behind it.
I thought you just said you don't mind paying taxes for some stuff?
No, it wasn't. If anybody is going to pay the price for GM screwing up, why not the GM employees who screwed up?
A good argument, and one that I would agree with under normal circumstances. However, the failure of GM at this point would most likely throw much of the midwest into depression. The few billion it would take to save GM - even if just for a short time - is minor compared to the amount we'd have to spend on social benefits. And I'd even argue that the money loaned to GM would be profitable for the government.
Yes you do. You want GM to get the output of other people's labor, by force and against their will. Sounds like forced labor to me.
No, that's tax. Forced labor is, well, forcing someone to perform labor. You can call it a subtle difference if you want, but they aren't the same thing.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
That directly contradicts history. There's no point arguing with you if you're going to flat out deny reality. The majority of people in the US were in favor of slavery. It doesn't matter what the situation in the south was.
And I'm saying you shouldn't have to be at the mercy of anybody. There are rights that can not be taken away. Haven't you read the Declaration of Independence?
You're trying to justify taxes on the grounds that they've always existed. That's what I'm getting out of it, at least.
I'll also point out that taxes *are* controversial. Look at the last election, for example. One of the major differences between the candidates were their tax plans.
If an ideal wouldn't work, then it's not an ideal. And by the way, that example is terrible. I don't know anybody who has a hard time not killing people.
Okay, I admit that was poorly phrased. I don't think we should have to pay taxes for those things either. But just because we already do, doesn't mean we should say "Fuck it, we use tax money for some stuff, let's just use it for everything." To use your ultra-lame "Thou shalt not kill" example, it's like saying "Well, we've killed a couple people , we might as well go for genocide." It doesn't make sense.
How do you come up with this shit? How are we not in "normal circumstances"? Companies go out of business every day.
My idea is to make the GM employees work for free, right now. According to your logic, under these supposedly "special circumstances," they should be more than happy to sacrifice their pay checks, because they'll be directly preventing a depression in the midwest. Instead of taking money from people who aren't involved, take the money directly from the employees. GM wouldn't "need" the loan if they didn't have to pay their employees.
And how do you figure the money given to GM will be profitable to the government? If that were true, banks would be standing in line to loan them money. Banks love making huge, profitable loans when they know for sure it'll be paid back. Hell, that's exactly what the banks need right now. Know why they're not volunteering? Because there's not a chance in hell they would get the money back.
Maybe not
That directly contradicts history. There's no point arguing with you if you're going to flat out deny reality. The majority of people in the US were in favor of slavery. It doesn't matter what the situation in the south was.
The majority of WHITE people were in favor with slavery. Blacks weren't even allowed to vote, so the country was clearly not a "democracy" by any modern definition of the word. If blacks could vote, I can assure you that slavery would not have existed - at least not in states where most of the population was black!
Unless you are arguing that South Africa was a democracy under apartheid?
Haven't you read the Declaration of Independence?
And have you read the Constitution? Many of the same men that wrote the Declaration wrote the Constitution - and those same men gave the government the right to tax.
You're trying to justify taxes on the grounds that they've always existed. That's what I'm getting out of it, at least.
Did you read what you quoted? LOL! I'll try again. I am not arguing that taxes are right because they existed a long time ago. I'm arguing that they are fine because they make sense right now, and on their own merits. As an ADDITIONAL point, I was trying to show just how uncontroversial they are - I mean, even YOU seem to like them for your own purposes.
I'll also point out that taxes *are* controversial.
Taxes are NOT controversial in terms of their existence. HOW to tax is all that is argued, not whether or not we should tax at all.
If an ideal wouldn't work, then it's not an ideal.
!!!
Whether something would work or not is not part of the definition of an ideal. Democracy is an ideal, is it not? Where has perfect democracy ever been practiced? Communism? Socialism? All of these "ism" words are ideals, and none of them have been implemented ideally on a large scale. It's great to work towards an ideal, but if you think you'll get there you are being quite naive.
And by the way, that example is terrible. I don't know anybody who has a hard time not killing people.
I can't believe that you think pacifism is not an ideal, and that you don't know any of the millions of veterans who had quite the hard time dealing with war. But since you don't like "thou shalt not kill", how about "shall not covet thy neighbor's wife"? Are you going to argue that you don't know anyone who has not been unfaithful to their wife/girlfriend? Does the fact that some people cheat and that monogamy is ultimately impossible to achieve 100% make it a less of an ideal?
But just because we already do, doesn't mean we should say "Fuck it, we use tax money for some stuff, let's just use it for everything."
If I thought like that, I'd be an idiot. However, I would say, "Hey, we already use tax money for this stuff over here... what makes it more deserving of tax money than this stuff over here?" You can't just take people's money to run your own pet programs and then cry foul when they want to do the same thing.
How are we not in "normal circumstances"? Companies go out of business every day.
Are you kidding me? This is not "every day". This is the largest financial crisis that this country has seen in - depending on the government's actions - 20 to 80 years. If we are lucky and the government acts in a way that is not brain dead, we will have a 1987-magnitude recession. One of the ways to get a 1987 rather than a 1929 is to do things like bail out failed companies in which the failure would cause an even steeper recession. Bailing out GM 2 years ago would have been unthinkable, but right now it would mean perhaps a million lost jobs in a time where there aren't any places for those lost jobs to go.
My idea is to make the GM employees work for free, right now.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
LOL! Convenient you snipped out the part where I corrected myself on that. But now you're just putting words in my mouth, so I'm not even going to bother. Enjoy your communism!
Maybe not
LOL! Convenient you snipped out the part where I corrected myself on that.
You did no such thing. I just re-read. Here's the pertinent section that I was responding to:
Okay, I admit that was poorly phrased. I don't think we should have to pay taxes for those things either. But just because we already do, doesn't mean we should say "Fuck it, we use tax money for some stuff, let's just use it for everything." To use your ultra-lame "Thou shalt not kill" example, it's like saying "Well, we've killed a couple people , we might as well go for genocide." It doesn't make sense.
At no point in the rest of your post do you correct yourself on this paragraph.
But now you're just putting words in my mouth,
I apologize if I did that - it was inadvertant. Would you mind pointing out the offending passage?
Enjoy your communism!
We were discussing socialism, actually. Communism is the whole Marx/Lennon thing with the proletariat and the bourgeois. Smart men, but I think they were wrong. Just like anarchists, they ultimately don't seem to understand human nature. You should look up anarchy, by the way. Your position flits between classical liberalism and anarchy.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.