Slashdot Mirror


Interviews: John McAfee Answers Your Questions About His Presidential Bid

Recently you had a chance to ask John McAfee about his presidential run under the newly-formed Cyber Party. John covers a wide variety of topics from education and infrastructure, to gun control and drug legalization. Read below for his answers to your questions. Reality
by wstrucke

How do you plan to overcome the virtual impossibility of breaking through the two-party system?

McAfee: Please bear with me on this one. It is a very serious question:

I have always been outside the box, exploring, discovering, examining. I take nothing for granted, including the rules laid down by my church, my family, my schools, my government. The world is a large place with conflicting morals, cultures, values and traditions. Life is something we enter without a universal instruction booklet and I have been searching for one - unsuccessfully. But I have learned much through the school of hard knocks. I have never murdered anyone and I do not steal. I avoid causing physical harm at all costs. I tell the truth, no matter how painful it may be me. I have compassion for all people. I have never raped, nor slept with a legally underage woman. I have honored my father and mother and have respected those worthy of respect. As for all the rest, I have broken every rule ever written. Some forays over the line have enlightened me. Some have brought me down. But I could not be the security talent that I am had I not done everything that I did. I understand the high and low of life and I understand the human heart. I see the misery in this world and I know that only compassion and courage will fix it.

The two party system is a single machine. It has evolved for more than one hundred years into a mechanism that absorbs all participants. Every party member becomes a cog in that machine, and the machine, and its cogs are devoid of heart and spirit. The machine cannot fix anything that touches the human heart or the human spirit, nor can it perceive anything beyond its own ambitions. It is the destroyer of humanity and the cause of wars and all manner of suffering.

The perception that the two party system cannot be overcome is an illusion, and the illusion is propagated by those who look to history for advice rather than the exquisite beauty of the present moment.

We are in the age of the Internet. We no longer must believe what others tell us. We no longer have to accept the polished, plastic debates of Presidential candidates to help us decide who might better lead the country. We have the full knowledge of the World at our fingertips. When Senator Nelson (D-Fl), for example, proposes a bill to force companies to reveal to its customers that a data breach has occurred within 30 days of the breach, we can do our own research and discover the following:

We would discover, for example, that more than 90% of all computer hacks go entirely undetected. Of the 10% that are detected, there is not a single example where the awareness of the breach happened sooner than 6 months after the breach, with the average being two or more years. Even the most invasive and egregious hacks are seldom detected soon enough to avoid the hackers from exploiting whatever they have taken.

A prime example of this is the hack of the US Office of Personnel Management. The most sensitive data that any government can possible posses, complete records of every employee possessing a Top Secret clearance, went undiscovered for more than a year.

You could then ask yourself: of what earthly value is a legislated notification period to a victim whose data has already been compromised and exploited to the fullest extent possible? Additionally, it is usually impossible, when a breach is detected, to determine whose data was taken. You might ask what the total cost in time and effort would be expended in adhering to this legislation and you could then research all pertinent data on the steps required to recall a senator.

I am running an electronic campaign. It is through interviews such as this, and through fireside chats using software that I have developed that I intend to reach the American public, whom, I believe is much smarter than the average politician believes. I am convinced that I will be the first independently elected U.S. President. I do know that the two party system must come to an end. Courage and compassion are the necessary ingredients of any push to save this country, and the party system is devoid of both.



One World
by shuz

The world largely views the USA as a bully and full of very wealthy people that don't care about those less privileged. As president of the USA, how would you advance world cooperation and work to change world views of the USA to just another location in the world full of mostly average non-privileged individuals living out their lives?

Unrelated, my best friend almost ran you over at Defcon. He wasn't looking where he is going and apologizes.


McAfee: Hat’s off to your friend, whom I dodged with ease. Had he not been drinking I may not be speaking to you now.

America has been playing World Policeman for far too long. It is our unwanted interference in the internal affairs of foreign states that has caused, supported and animated the concept of terrorism.

I have traveled extensively, and no traveler is hated more than the American traveler. We are arrogant and expect the entire world to speak our language rather than go to the trouble to learn theirs. We are rude: we expect everyone else’s food to taste like our own, and when it does not, we complain. We are morally and culturally judgmental and frown when an Ecuadorian Peasant urinates beside the road or naked man and woman emerge from the surf at Ipanema. We are demanding. We stay at cheap hotels in Tokyo and we are put out when there is no room service. We gossip and stare. And we dress and act like barbarians that only yesterday came down from the trees and began walking upright in near perfect imitation of humans.

We are an anomaly in the world. We project the greatest military power that the world has ever seen, yet we express ourselves as spoiled angry children. Even our leaders mimic the crudities of the American Tourist. Is it any wonder that we are embroiled in every hot spot of chaos that erupts within the world.

My administration will reign in our activities relating to policing the world. It will accept that the world is filled with cultures and governments alien to our own, yet admired and loved by those existing within those cultures. It will acknowledge that morality is, with few exceptions, a localized phenomenon and that we are not the world’s moral judge. It will acknowledge that Democracy is not the fountain stone as a measure of government, and that our own Democracy is fraught with severe problems that lead to the same police state atrocities that we generally ascribe to dictatorships. Thus, the mindless propagation of democracy throughout the world as the solution to all of the world’s problems will be re-evaluated. We need to first fix our own democracy.

Foreign aid will have to be curtailed. We are 18 Trillion dollars in debt. If a friend asks you for $20 and you don’t have it, you can’t give it. This is a prime axiom of the real world. The government does not live in the real world and simply prints money when it does not have any to spend. This printing devalues the hard earned dollars that you have worked for. It is a simple formula, irrespective of how complex the government wants you to believe that it is.

In a nutshell, I believe that our domestic problems are so extreme, that foreign policy will not much deteriorate if we do little or nothing about it for a while. It may even improve.



Snowden
by gQuigs

Would you pardon Edward Snowden?

McAfee: Absolutely. And Also Ross Ulbricht.



Trump
by justcauseisjustthat

What are your thoughts on Donald Trump? And why are you more qualified to be president?

McAfee: I believe that Trump would best serve the country by doing what he has always done so well – Creating thousands of productive jobs in private industry.

I am skeptical of someone who claims to have never written an email leading a country in a Cyber War with China.



Re:technology?
by Qzukk

Or, to put it differently: If we're going to become issues voters and only vote on the technology issue, why should we vote for you instead of Lawrence Lessig?

McAfee: I have never proposed that we become one issue voters. You’re confusing me with President Obama.

What I had to say on that was: On 2 October, President Obama declared: “Here's what you need to do: You have to make sure that anybody that you are voting for is on the right side of this issue.” If politicians oppose these measures, he continued, “even if they're great on other stuff, you've got to vote against them.” He was talking about gun control.

My first thought upon hearing Obama's proclamation was that I was in the middle of an acid flashback and I had no benzodiazepines to mediate the trip. My second thought was: what possible single issue, in this complex society of ours, would merit a “single issue” status?

Just to set the record straight.



Nuclear Power using LFTR
by Anonymous Coward

John, what is your position on Nuclear Power?

Would you support the re-opening of research into liquid fluoride thorium reactors. These reactor designs, and the thorium fuel cycle were researched back in the 70's and can solve both our energy crisis, be far more environmentally friendly than uranium based fuel cycles, and can even used 'spent' uranium reactor fuel as fuel sources, allowing us to reprocess our vast quantity of spent fuel into less harmful waste, while also capturing the energy from them (instead of having it wasted heating water in spent fuel ponds).


McAfee: We have hobbled ourselves and become non competitive by our harsh legislation again nuclear power. This will change.



What Technologies?
by Bodhammer

What technology research should be government funded and what should be private?

McAfee: We must bolster our Cyber security and cyber weapons research, first and foremost, and this must be government funded. We are so far behind the Chinese that catching up is not at all certain, even with me at the helm. As to the rest, I need to understand it better and consider it well.



Cybersecurity Knowledge?
by jmac_the_man

Mr. McAfee, obviously your field of expertise is Information Security. What are the one or two biggest problems facing the Federal government from an IT perspective? How would you solve these problems?

McAfee: Education is number one. Our information technology managers are generally old, ossified and unmotivated to keep up with the rapidly changing technology environment. Without education, all of our efforts will amount to nothing.



Comment on your last interview
by schneidafunk

Care to comment on your last answer from your last interview here on slashdot?

“McAfee: The attorney for the House Ways and Means Committee contacted me and asked if I would help. I said ‘no’. I would never run for office, neither would I want to be in office, of any kind. I would rather drive a nail through my foot.”


McAfee: I would still rather drive a nail through my foot. I sincerely do not want this. My closest friends, however, have threatened to kneecap me if I don’t do it. If you can provide me safe harbor from my friends and advisers I would gladly stop campaigning.



Where's the rest of the platform?
by mr_mischief

We understand where you stand on surveillance. Where do you stand on these issues?: (*Some subjects specifically addressed at https://mcafee16.com/issues/ were removed.*)

firearms
McAfee: An armed society is a polite society.

The impetus for most proclamations surrounding gun control are generally mass murders, some involving guns. A little research will uncover the little known fact that mass murders were virtually unknown prior to 1980.

This fact disturbs me, and it should you, since guns have been prominently owned in this society since the founding of our country, and there was no sweeping legislation in 1980 or after that radically changed gun ownership laws or rates of gun ownership. This, to a thinking person, without qualification, removes guns as the source of our problem — unless of course guns suddenly achieved the ability to subconsciously tempt their owners to use them in heretofore-unknown ways. If not, then the problem appears to be an increase in violent urgings, stemming from some unknown source deep within the fabric of our society.

There are many possibilities for this source. In the 1980s we saw the first widescale use of selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors (anti-depressants) such as Prozac, Paxil, and others. Hundreds of studies have shown that these anti depressants have side effects that include violent thoughts. A few minutes of research will tell us that 8 percent of the U.S. is taking anti-depressants, yet more than 30 percent of all mass murderers since 1980 were known to have been taking them. It’s highly suspected that the real number approaches 90 percent — a statistical anomaly of egregious proportions. I would begin here if I were looking for a source.

But it’s much easier to disprove a cause than it is to prove a cause. Use of anti-depressants may merely be an artifact of some deeper cause that is as yet unknown.

We do know that governments that turn deceptive and begin spying on their citizens foment unrest, anger, and despair. However, given that we do not have citizens carrying signs in the streets and recalling their representatives en masse — outward signs we would expect from a citizenry that is not afraid of its government — then perhaps that has not happened here in America.

In any case, I do not believe that guns are the problem. On the other hand, Gun Free Zones appear to be a serious problem. Every mass shooting for the past 20 years has occurred in a gun free zone. Where else would someone with a gun who wants to create havoc go? We need armed guards at schools, churches, courthouses and every other place that we now deem “gun free”

abortion
McAfee: A woman's body is her own.

gay marriage
McAfee: Homosexual couples of either sex should equally be allowed to suffer the frustrations of marriage along with everyone else.

keeping the FCC from preventing flashing of consumer electronics with new firmware
McAfee: Is the FCC still needed in an age of digital communications? Isn't this the question?

net neutrality
McAfee: Any control whatsoever of the Internet is questionable if not actually insidious.

lowering the skyrocketing levels of student debt
McAfee: Why not lower the cost of education itself? What is the cause of these high costs? Further, why not redefine Education in a manner that reflects the fact that the overwhelming knowledge base no longer resides in Universities but is freely available on the Net? We need to ask ourselves whether our higher education system in it's entirety, us actually relevant.

making healthcare affordable or subsidizing paying for it
McAfee: Healthcare costs would be cut by 75% if medical malpractice lawsuits were outlawed or at least massively curtailed.

investing in our roads and bridges
McAfee: This was the original main intent of government - an infrastructure, plus national defense. Look how far we have strayed. I intend to take the "power" out of government and return it to is original function of "service"



What will you do when you become president?
by Kohath

What is your agenda for the first 100 days of the McAfee administration?

McAfee:
  • Pardon All non violent Marijuana offenses, whether for possession or for sale.
  • Pardon Edward Snowden and Ross Ulbricht.
  • Disband the TSA in its entirety. I will continue to pay all salaries until I can figure out what value the employees have. The TSA budget is nearly $8 Billion. Salaries are less than $2 Billion. We save $6 Billion.
  • Place armed marshals on all flights.
  • Disband the Bureau of Indian Affairs – under same principles as TSA.
  • Radically restrict The FDA.
  • Direct the NSA and all other covert agencies that report to the Executive Branch to end all spying on American citizens and to place their efforts where our real threats lie.

After that, I’m unclear. Hopefully I will have learned much after I assume the Oval Office.

229 comments

  1. Yep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I agree with his answers, and may be a good president if elected. Conclusion: he's unelectable.

    1. Re:Yep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The second his drug history and suspected murder hits CNN not even god himself could get him elected.

    2. Re:Yep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That article was in cya tests/prescriptions/etc not in malpractice insurance and lawsuits.

    3. Re:Yep by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      In fact, he discussed a portion of his drug history in the answers! "My first thought upon hearing Obama's proclamation was that I was in the middle of an acid flashback and I had no benzodiazepines to mediate the trip."

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    4. Re:Yep by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Didn't stop President Clinton - either time...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    5. Re: Yep by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If god is involved then no election is required, just install McAfee and magically defend all assassination attempts

    6. Re:Yep by TopherC · · Score: 1

      I liked a lot of his answers too. Though I may not agree with everything, McAfee argues his positions with much better reasoning and somewhat less rhetoric than any other political candidates I've heard from recently. My favorite answer is "I would still rather drive a nail through my foot. ..." If he's honest about this, then he satisfies what I think is the most important qualification of any politician: they don't want the job.

      But if I agree with him on these issues, wouldn't he make a better congressman than president? What are the actual demands of a president? His last answer addresses this more directly, but aside from the pardons the rest may be impractical. From what I can tell our presidents are primarily diplomats, not policy leaders. Still I like him more than the Democrat and Republican candidates. This isn't saying much.

  2. YEEEE HAWWWW! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    McAfee's no Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho, but a split ticket with Trump would sufficiently cover all bases.

  3. First guy to get the education question right by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    >> lowering the skyrocketing levels of student debt McAfee: Why not lower the cost of education itself? What is the cause of these high costs?

    I think McAfee's the first guy to get the education question right.

    1. Re:First guy to get the education question right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I have the exact same thought on giving a huge increase to minimum wage.

      Maybe the problem is the high cost of living...

      So by increasing the minimum wage, those who don't have access to it (many people in fact, including the homeless and those who will lose their job as a result) will just be poorer.

    2. Re:First guy to get the education question right by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      I personally think student loans are the single biggest cause of high tuition. This is simple supply and demand. What happens when people are given money to throw at tuition costs? Demand for higher priced courses goes up, which places upward pressure on tuition costs.

      Therefore a wonderful place to start would be to have the government stop issuing student loans, and make all private student loans henceforth be possible to chapter 7.

      And by the way, I have zero sympathy for people who took out massive student loans. I had to pay for my first few years of college on my own (nope, parents didn't spend a cent,) and after that got grants. In state community college followed by in state university is the correct thing to do; not hopping directly on the "expensive out of state university" bandwagon. In fact the grants made education so cheap that I was profiting from the scholarships, and came out of college with more money than I came into it with. I'm not a special snowflake either, this is easy shit that just anybody can apply for.

    3. Re:First guy to get the education question right by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      What is the cause of these high costs?

      Student debt. And student grants. When you pump more money into the demand for a good, the price of the good goes up as more supply is created. Basic econominics.

    4. Re:First guy to get the education question right by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      The first guy? Seriously? For ? First guy in the world?

    5. Re:First guy to get the education question right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet theory dictates that price goes down when demand increases. How about you don't play armchair economist on education costs?

    6. Re:First guy to get the education question right by roman_mir · · Score: 1
    7. Re:First guy to get the education question right by thinkwaitfast · · Score: 1

      When you factor in the college wage premium, the cost is lower than it has been since the 50's. Median college debt is around $30k

    8. Re:First guy to get the education question right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that he also wants to rethink (=cut) the sources that bring most of the higher educational resources into the Internet, namely the Universities.

    9. Re:First guy to get the education question right by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The cause for the high costs is the american so beloved free market and ratio between supply and demand topped with clever marketing and lobbying that makes some universities superiour to others.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    10. Re:First guy to get the education question right by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      Yet theory dictates that price goes down when demand increases.

      No, you've got that totally backwards. Demand increases in response to prices decreasing, not the other way around. When demand increases, prices usually increase in response.

      However, demand also increases in response to an increase in purchasing power. Somebody giving you a loan that's dead simple to qualify definitely qualifies as an increase in purchasing power, albeit a somewhat artificial one. However if you nip away that artificial increase in purchasing power, then you'll also nip away the demand, and that will put downward pressure on tuition prices. (If schools can't keep attendance up, then they'll have to lower their tuition in response to generate more demand.)

    11. Re:First guy to get the education question right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      This is obvious to everyone who is slightly intelligent and is why we don't have a minimum wage of $1,000 an hour.

      I thought the reason we don't have a minimum wage of $1,000 an hour is because minimum wage is supposed to be the minimum amount needed to get by in life.

      I will, however, grant you that the fix to the minimum wage problem might not be to raise minimum wage.

    12. Re:First guy to get the education question right by s.petry · · Score: 1

      When demand increases, prices usually increase in response.

      NO! This is only true with scarcity. Monopolies create false scarcity so that they can increase the prices with the demand, but the free market should do the exact opposite (shows you where the US economy sits).

      The US has a government forced monopoly on Banking (Student loans) and the Education system.

      Milton Friedman spent a lot of time on this subject and it's economic impact. Start at Capitalism and Freedom + Price Theory, then work your way outward.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    13. Re:First guy to get the education question right by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      This is true, but all of my points were generalizations. Another factor that comes into play is elasticity for example. Generally when there's increased demand, there's also increased scarcity.

    14. Re:First guy to get the education question right by s.petry · · Score: 1

      NO again! You are giving a false cause relationship. The first half, "demand can increase when prices drop" is a correct correlation. The second part "When demand increases, prices usually increase in response." is incorrect. Prices increase with demand _ONLY_ when there is scarcity. If there is no scarcity prices will level off and become maintained at a reasonable profit margin for the producer at the best price for the consumer.

      Very simply, the reason for the price increase when demand increases is NOT due to the demand, it's due to scarcity.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    15. Re:First guy to get the education question right by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      Prices increase with demand _ONLY_ when there is scarcity.

      I kind of get the feeling that you're arguing just to argue. But anyways, if you're really wanting to get technical, then that's also incorrect. For a real world example, some clothing manufacturers experience increased demand when they raise the price, and scarcity never comes into play.

    16. Re:First guy to get the education question right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He probably meant "first guy who is not a cult leader"

    17. Re:First guy to get the education question right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WTF? Someone got this right AND it was an AC? Hell has frozen over. Err... FSM's pot has boiled!

      Yes folks, raising the minimum wage results in a decrease of the buying power of the monetary unit. That is all it does - except for the very short term. This doesn't mean it shouldn't go up - just that it should not rise a great deal, it should be a percentage and we can argue about where that percentage is.

      Look at what the dollar is worth now. Look at what it was when you were a child.

    18. Re:First guy to get the education question right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It may also be that people want to live above and beyond their means. They are saddled with credit and still trying to buy as much as they can even though they have no need of it. "Oh, but our parents had such a great life!" No, your parents knew how to fucking budget. They're fucking nitwits. Stop spending $1000 on a fixie and buying a new fucking iPad on credit every two years.

    19. Re:First guy to get the education question right by s.petry · · Score: 0

      No, I am arguing basic economics which you seem to be completely ignorant to. In fact you just attempted to cherry pick something beneficial, but inadvertently demonstrate my point. The reason those special clothing lines are increased in price is because there are limited quantities. Scarcity is always at play in the market, and yes that is literally 100% of the time.

      I gave you the primer material, but I see that you are way too self important to actually attempt to learn. Nothing else to see here.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    20. Re:First guy to get the education question right by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      The reason those special clothing lines are increased in price is because there are limited quantities.

      No, you're flat out wrong, and ignorant. When they do this, they actually produce more of them because the demand for them increases, and likewise when they decrease the price they see reduced demand. This is a general term called a Veblen good:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Plenty of sources there as well, so again, you're dead wrong here, and your understanding of economics is likewise lacking.

    21. Re:First guy to get the education question right by s.petry · · Score: 1

      You didn't even bother to read your own page did you? You could not have, because you would have noticed that the specific cases mentioned are luxury items limited to a specific financial class and limited in quantity. Such as the Rolls Royce pictured right at the top of the damn page. The exception mentioned is the bandwagon effect, which is not stable economics and can be illegal (deceptive advertising). It is not a "normal" function of capitalist economics.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    22. Re:First guy to get the education question right by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      What is the "college wage premium", and what does it have to do with my son's University education cost being about four times mine in constant dollars?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    23. Re:First guy to get the education question right by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter, I gave you a very clear cut case of prices increasing with demand without scarcity. You're just an idiot for stating that as an ironclad rule. For a generalization? Yeah, it works. However when I made generalizations you're trying to push rigid rules on to me as if you're some kind of an expert, which you clearly aren't.

    24. Re:First guy to get the education question right by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      In fact, in addition to what I posted, here's another example that breaks the ironclad rule you stated:

      During this Halloween season, the demand and the price BOTH increase for candy, and the supply also rises to match the demand, meaning the scarcity does not change. Yet, the price still rises anyways during that time period.

      See how dumb it is to create rules that you think apply to EVERY situation, instead of understanding that in any subject that touches on psychology, the rules bend or even break unexpectedly. Hell, the fall of Keynesian economics (or rather, why it fell) should be proof enough for you.

  4. John McAfee as a libertarian? by ressolute · · Score: 2

    I wonder why McAfee didn't just run as a libertarian. His views seem to align with a lot of libertarian beliefs.

    1. Re:John McAfee as a libertarian? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      Which reminds me. Is it too late? I wanted to ask him about his immigration policies with respect to central american countries, should they accept Americans?

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    2. Re:John McAfee as a libertarian? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I wonder why McAfee didn't just run as a libertarian. His views seem to align with a lot of libertarian beliefs.
      Erm ... and which party would that be?
      As fars I know the mayjour parties in the US are the Republicans and the Democrats ... never heard about 'the Libertarians'.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    3. Re:John McAfee as a libertarian? by aitikin · · Score: 1

      I wonder why McAfee didn't just run as a libertarian. His views seem to align with a lot of libertarian beliefs. Erm ... and which party would that be? As fars I know the mayjour parties in the US are the Republicans and the Democrats ... never heard about 'the Libertarians'.

      Just because they're not a major party doesn't mean they don't exist. The Libertarian Party has been around for a while (40+ years per Wikipedia). The US has hundreds if not thousands of parties in our political system, but, by a stupid clause in The Constitution ("The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President, if such Number be a Majority of the whole Number of Electors appointed"), we have a de facto 2 party system in place for the Presidency, which is why you only hear of the Democrats and Republicans.

      A prime example of a modern third party candidate is actually Bernie Sanders who has served as an Independent in the Senate for years, but rather than try to rally > 50% of the vote as an Independent, he has chosen to run as a Democrat as he closest aligns to that of the 2-parties.

      --
      "Don't meddle in the affairs of a patent dragon, for thou art tasty and good with ketchup." ~ohcrapitssteve
    4. Re:John McAfee as a libertarian? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup. I've been a member pretty much since their inception. No, we are not Ayn Rand fans - as a general rule. Most of us are even sane. It's the vocal minority and those who misrepresent the party that get the microphone.

  5. From McAfee's campaign website by De_Boswachter · · Score: 2

    This interview with RT does a good job of illustrating many of John McAfee’s views: "This video is no longer available because the YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated." http://i.imgur.com/KuYENGO.png

    For a guy who got rich from making security software for personal computers, this sure is one major campaigning fuck-up, if you pardon my French.

  6. Pardon Ross Ulbricht? by PvtVoid · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Really? How about Hans Reiser while we're at it?

    1. Re:Pardon Ross Ulbricht? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      Assuming this is an honest question: Hans Reisner was found guilty of first degree murder, while Ross Ulbricht's procuring murder charges were dropped.

  7. Cyber party? by nitehawk214 · · Score: 1

    Shit, they are even behind the times on terminology. Nobody uses Cyber anymore.

    --
    I'm a good cook. I'm a fantastic eater. - Steven Brust
    1. Re:Cyber party? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Shit, they are even behind the times on terminology. Nobody uses Cyber anymore.

      U.S. Army Cyber Command wants to have a word with you.

    2. Re: Cyber party? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Army
      You said it right there.

  8. Malpractice.. by gQuigs · · Score: 5, Informative

    >McAfee: Healthcare costs would be cut by 75% if medical malpractice lawsuits were outlawed or at least massively curtailed.

    Or around 2.5% - http://health.usnews.com/healt...

    Maybe if we design our system so it's not so hard to apologize when a doctor makes a mistake that would help...
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

    1. Re:Malpractice.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Does the 2.5% account for all of the seconday effects of a litigious society. Added test, added insurance, (adding to "demand for medical service") added risk to becoming a doctor in the first place , doctors retiring early (reduced "supply of medical services").

      If you have a supply and demand imbalance when demand is fixed / very inelastic then you have MASSIVE pricing power on the supply side that is almost impossible to truly quantify. A small change in supply could have massive pricing implications.

    2. Re:Malpractice.. by bobbied · · Score: 2

      >McAfee: Healthcare costs would be cut by 75% if medical malpractice lawsuits were outlawed or at least massively curtailed.

      Or around 2.5% - http://health.usnews.com/healt...

      Maybe if we design our system so it's not so hard to apologize when a doctor makes a mistake that would help... http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

      McAfee is nuts.... There is no way 75% is even close.

      He's also nuts on the solution to the problem....

      The solution to this problem is "Looser pays legal fees". Right now, everybody pays their own legal fees, unless you sue for your legal costs and win. This should be "Looser pays" which means if you file a lawsuit and loose for any reason (judge dismisses it or you loose in court) you pay everybody's legal fees. This will make it much more dangerous for lawyers to gin up a possible case, sue Big Daddy War bucks with deep pockets and hope that something sticks and cut down on the border line frivolous suits.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    3. Re:Malpractice.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That study seems to only take into account the direct costs of malpractice lawsuits, at least based on reading the summary you linked. The cost of insurance and all associated paperwork/process (I remember having to wade through three or four sheets of questions before I could get a fairly routine dental operation done) need to be taken into account as well. I also bet there is a fair amount of pointless medical work done, because doing an extra test can't expose you to a lawsuit, but not doing a test - might. Same with prescribing antibiotics for everything starting with a sniffly nose. Even though it is almost always pointless, _not_ prescribing it might result in a ruinous lawsuit if someone gets sicker.

    4. Re:Malpractice.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The solution to this problem is "Looser pays legal fees".

      Why should the less tight party pay the legal fees. Your "solution" makes no sense.

    5. Re:Malpractice.. by BronsCon · · Score: 3, Informative

      Loser.

      I agree with your assessment, but... Loser.

      That is to say, your grasp of the English language seems to be much looser than mine.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    6. Re: Malpractice.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe he means the party with the looses case. Either way, it's an odd way to word it.

    7. Re: Malpractice.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Loose case" is common lawyer slang. It means your case isn't tight and has a lot of loose ends.

    8. Re:Malpractice.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that the ability for a normal person to successfully sue through trial a large well funded organization like a corporation or hospital is already very much at odds without putting another barrier in place. The large companies are already willing to spend $100 for every $1 you spend on legal -- and a major ploy used is to drag cases forward as slowly as possible knowing that normal people just can't afford ongoing costs.

      It is also important to note that most all states allow judges to penalize either side with laywer costs if there are indications that the suit was brought forth in bad faith.

    9. Re:Malpractice.. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      The solution to this problem is "Looser pays legal fees".

      Since "losing" is usually only tenuously related to the merits of the case, this would be a huge barrier to anyone without deep pockets, even if they have a valid case. Our justice system is already skewed in favor of big organizations, we don't need to make it worse.

      A better solution would be a system of quick summary proceedings, similar to small claims court. Each side gets 5 minutes to make their case, without a lawyer. Then it is only loser pays if the loser rejected the summary judgement and later lost in a full trial. Another (or additional) solution would be to make Rule 68 mandatory for both sides: both parties would be required to make a good faith offer of settlement, and it would only be "loser pays" if the final settlement is less than what was offered by the other side at the beginning.

    10. Re:Malpractice.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >McAfee: Healthcare costs would be cut by 75% if medical malpractice lawsuits were outlawed or at least massively curtailed.

      Or around 2.5% - http://health.usnews.com/healt...

      Maybe if we design our system so it's not so hard to apologize when a doctor makes a mistake that would help...
      http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pm...

      But wait there's more

      Radically restrict The FDA.

      Because I'm sure health costs will go down when Pharma can do what it wants, I mean obviously its the FDA keeping all these drugs at insanely high prices by not catering to Pharma's every need. More direct to consumer advertising to muddy the waters will make things even better...I just can't wait to see!

    11. Re:Malpractice.. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 0

      But you do know that 'loser' and 'lose' is pronounced like looser and loose?

      And you do know as perfect valid english words they are not red underlined by your spell checker?

      Erm, I really wonder if you know that?

      If .. big capital bold IF you know that ... why do you bother if one makes such a simple mistake?

      In computer science we have a term for your behaviour: intellectual violence

      It is defined in a book with the name Anti Patterns.

      And yes, we prefer the queens english, where 'behaviour' is written how it is pronounced, not how ... erm, well, not my fault that you pronounce prononce wrong.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    12. Re:Malpractice.. by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      The problem with letting judges assign legal fees to the loser in cases of bad faith is that almost all judges are fucking lawyers and they don't want to do anything that upsets the gravy train. So they never assign costs unless they are embarrassed into it.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    13. Re:Malpractice.. by BronsCon · · Score: 3, Informative

      But you do know that 'loser' and 'lose' is pronounced like looser and loose?

      No. They're not. Which makes the rest of your comment irrelevant. You see, the "s" in "loser" and "lose" has a "z" sound, while it retains its "s" sound in "looser" and "loose". That's ignoring the fact that the definitions differ vastly; "loser pays" implies that whoever loses pays, while "looser pays" might imply that whoever has the looser grip on their wallet must pony up the expenses. Despite the fact that you and I both clearly understood what as meant, a non-native English speaker might be confused by this; that is precisely why the difference between the two words actually does matter.

      Further, one definition of "loose" is "set free; release" which, to a non-native English speaker, could indicate that a "looser" is one who has been set free, or released from allegations of malpractice, thus indicating that the winner pays legal expenses. I imagine that would be met with a thought of "stupid Americans make winners pay legal expenses, so nobody actually wins in court" rather than a thought of "silly spelling mistake".

      Again, yes, it actually is important; not everybody is familiar enough with our language to be able to catch and correct these errors.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    14. Re:Malpractice.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you do know that 'loser' and 'lose' is pronounced like looser and loose?

      Only if you have a speeth impediminth.

    15. Re:Malpractice.. by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      The solution to this problem is "Looser pays legal fees"

      "Loser pays" would certainly curtail frivolous cases. Unfortunately, it would also severely curtail cases that have strong merit and deserve to be heard by a jury.

      Short of complete reform of our legal system, I don't believe there is a good, just solution to the problem short of something like all punitive damages are paid to the state, rather than to the losing party, and possibly something draconian like a cap on legal fees... but both of these have their own problems.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    16. Re:Malpractice.. by bobbied · · Score: 2

      5 min summary judgments In a malpractice suit? I don't think so. Medical malpractice is a bit more complicated than your average person could argue, and you would be trying to argue with a doctor with a degree, license and experience. They'd get an expert witness, you'd get whatever you could Google... That you had a bad outcome from a medical procedure is NOT evidence enough that the Doctor is responsible, so I'd expect the doctor to win every time at summary judgment.

      And you where complaining about "loser pay" being unfair... Shesh..

      BTW, Loser pays is what they do in the UK and *most* of Europe. They have a lot less of a problem with stupid civil cases clogging up their courts. It may not be a perfect solution, but it does work... What doesn't work is the politics of the issue because this would make the legal profession a whole lot less necessary on this side of the pond and given the affinity for lawyers and politicians, I seriously doubt one would put the other out of a job.... Either way.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    17. Re:Malpractice.. by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      Not really.
      Loser has an s sound similar to a Z, while Looser has an s sound more similar to an S. IE: Loo - zer and Loo-sir.

      I do have to agree that everytime I see "looser" instead of "loser", my teeth ache.

      Perhaps it comes from being rejected by the US foreign service, during sit down all day testing, by a foreign service officer who continually said "aks". "we will aks you the question, and....".
       

    18. Re:Malpractice.. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      I'm not so sure it would curtail all that many cases with obvious merit. The judgments would still be potentially big and if there was enough merit in the case the draw would be strong to get to trial. What would happen is lawyers would be more selective about the cases they took on contingency and those they didn't. If you have a good case, they will take you, but if your case is not that good, they might be more apt to not take the chance on you. If you want to pay up front and assume the risks, they will be happy to take you. Nobody is prevented from taking a case to court if that's what they want to do.

      As it stands now, lawyers are out looking for that big class action, accident, or product liability case they can retire on. That one where they can get a huge settlement, skim off their 2/3rds of the award and walk away with enough money to retire. I know few actually manage to do this, but if you are a lawyer struggling to make ends meet in private practice, filing the case is cheap and your time is free so why not? If you can make a quick settlement for a few thousand dollars, it's easy money. If the case is good and the defendant has lots of money, your chances of turning a quick buck can be pretty good. Or do you think the personal injury, ambulance chasers do it for the thrills? Or that they advertise on local TV during the day as a public service?

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    19. Re:Malpractice.. by bobbied · · Score: 2

      Loser. I agree with your assessment, but... Loser.

      Thank you... Sorry about the usage issues.... Not enough caffeine today..

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    20. Re:Malpractice.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you do know that 'loser' and 'lose' is pronounced like looser and loose?

      Not by me they aren't, chinky boy.

    21. Re:Malpractice.. by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      you would be trying to argue with a doctor with a degree, license and experience.

      You would also be arguing in front of an experienced judge with subject matter expertise, who specializes in medical summaries.

      They'd get an expert witness, you'd get whatever you could Google...

      Five minutes isn't enough time to bring in an expert witness.

      so I'd expect the doctor to win every time at summary judgment.

      Plenty of people take corporations to small claims court, and prevail more often than in higher courts.

      BTW, Loser pays is what they do in the UK and *most* of Europe. They have a lot less of a problem with stupid civil cases clogging up their courts.

      Common citizens have far less access to the justice system in Europe. "Loser pays" is basically the same as "Corporation wins".

    22. Re:Malpractice.. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      They'd get an expert witness, you'd get whatever you could Google...

      Five minutes isn't enough time to bring in an expert witness.

      The doctor you where suing IS an expert witness, so if a question came up about a medical choice they made, they'd be the expert. Or do you make a habit of not seeing doctors who are board certified and licensed? If this doctor says, "Well, in this case my choice of treatment was in the best interests of the patient, it was reasonable and customary for the condition being treated. I informed the patient (you) of the possible complications and was directed to proceed as this "Authorization to treat" form, signed by the patient (you) indicates. Other options where discussed, this is what the patient decided to do."

      There won't be much you can say after that, without having your own expert testimony, board certified, licensed physician to show how what the defendant is saying isn't true. You can bet the Judge won't know anything but the law and an impartial judge cannot decide a case on facts not presented during the trial...

      Now, if you want to allow for a summary judgment by an impartial panel of DOCTORS who review the medical records and the complainant's case and determine if the case has some kind of medical substance and isn't just a lawyer's pipe dream, I'd go for that. But I seriously doubt it's going to do all that much to weed out the "hail Mary" legal plays by desperate personal injury lawyers looking for any kind of payday they can get.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    23. Re:Malpractice.. by bloodhawk · · Score: 2

      But you do know that 'loser' and 'lose' is pronounced like looser and loose?.

      Not in most of the English speaking world they aint! not sure where you are from that they are pronounced similar.

    24. Re:Malpractice.. by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      "Loser pays" works just fine in Germany and there are far less frivolous cases indeed.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    25. Re:Malpractice.. by tlambert · · Score: 1

      But wait there's more

      Radically restrict The FDA.

      Because I'm sure health costs will go down when Pharma can do what it wants, I mean obviously its the FDA keeping all these drugs at insanely high prices by not catering to Pharma's every need.

      They are preventing international competition on pricing, which is why you are not allowed to import prescription drugs, for personal use, from much cheaper pharmacies in Canada, even though they are supplied by the same companies, or even manufactured in the U.S..

      So Pharma is pretty much doing what it wants right now, and deregulating the drug market by stopping the revolving door between the FDA and Pharma would be one of the steps necessary to prevent the FDA from passing such regulations.

    26. Re:Malpractice.. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      When I hear it in a movie both variants sound exactly the same for me. (lose and loose etc.)
      But I'm germany :D

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    27. Re:Malpractice.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I hear it in a movie both variants sound exactly the same for me. (lose and loose etc.)
      But I'm germany :D

      That you are from Germany makes it especially odd that you can't hear the "z" in "lose" versus the "s" in "loose".

    28. Re:Malpractice.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like we are going to take advice from a bunch of savages that go to war every other generation (if not more often) and then they whine to America for help in digging them out of the rubble, rebuilding their city, leeching off the American tax payer, and never paying the money back while bitching about how inferior Americans are while Americans are still footing the bill for your defense. That's like asking the retard to lead the class on a field trip to the science museum. If it wasn't for America you'd be speaking Russian and rightfully so. Fucking savages. Check your DNA. You're mixed with Neanderthal. No, we're not listening to you or following your example. That would be retarded.

    29. Re:Malpractice.. by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      I think you and I are like mind on the general state of the legal profession, so I will not comment on your second point. However:

      I'm not so sure it would curtail all that many cases with obvious merit. The judgments would still be potentially big and if there was enough merit in the case the draw would be strong to get to trial. What would happen is lawyers would be more selective about the cases they took on contingency and those they didn't. If you have a good case, they will take you, but if your case is not that good, they might be more apt to not take the chance on you. If you want to pay up front and assume the risks, they will be happy to take you. Nobody is prevented from taking a case to court if that's what they want to do.

      Contingency wouldn't change at all--in a "loser pays" system, the attorneys will not be the ones to bear the costs, since as you allude to, the lawyers ALWAYS get paid.

      What I am getting at with my statement that "cases with strong merit would not get heard by a jury" I propose the following example: your neighbor has turned your subdivision into a free fire zone. You do not live inside the city limits, so there is no law preventing him from doing so, but the deed restrictions on your (and, thusly, his) property, while not outright declaring the discharge of firearms to be forbidden, has a clause in it stating that "nuisances" are, in fact, prohibited. You talk to the neighbor to try to curtail the activity, but he disagrees he is in the wrong and maintains that he will continue to engage in this behavior. Your only recourse is civil court, with the goal to get an injunction to prevent the activity.

      The above is not hypothetical, but what I am actually going through right now (some might consider it ironic, given my sig and position on the 2nd amendment in general, but I personally see no conflicts). In a loser pays environment, there's no way I go to court with this--the potential downsides are too high, and the issue is gray enough that a jury could go either way. The case DOES have merit, but the chilling effect of loser pays keeps the jury from hearing it.

      In my case, legal fees on both sides would probably amount to a couple of thousand dollars, in total. Now imagine a scaled up version of the above--some agribusiness moves in across the street and turns your neighborhood into an uninhabitable wasteland because of the stench of the pig processing they are doing there. They are in violation of no laws (not even EPA regulations). Because you're dealing with $GIANT_AGRIBUSINESS, Inc. legal fees will be not be in the thousands, but in the hundreds of thousands, or even the millions. Because they have brought hundreds of new jobs to the area, the potential jury pool (everyone in the county who doesn't have to live across the street) is heavily biased against you.

      Again, your case has merit, but you will never go to court, because the downsides of a loss outweigh the benefits of winning. That's where "loser pays" fails.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    30. Re:Malpractice.. by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      Matter of fact I do speak Russian, amongst other languages. Learning foreign languages makes people smarter, which is exactly what makes the difference between a savage and a civilised human.

      Also it is especially funny to read about "a bunch of savages that go to war every other generation" coming from an American - since your country was founded you basically had just 21 years without a war.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    31. Re:Malpractice.. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Remember the goal here is to reduce the impact of liability suits, specifically for medical malpractice or medical device liability.

      No solution is perfect, but the "Looser pays" concept comes at zero cost to the general public, does discourage lawsuits at the right end of the spectrum from being filed, but doesn't really deal a death blow to the existing process like liability and punitive damage caps would.

      In your case, it would give YOU pause in filing the lawsuit, to be sure, but if it means enough to you, it doesn't stop you from marching down to the courthouse and filing, it just increases your risk should you loose.

      BTW... IMHO, unless your neighbor is firing his weapons at all hours of the day and night (mostly the night) I don't think you have a case on the nuisance idea in the deed restrictions. You might have a case if they are firing all night or shooting skeet in a direction where the shot is falling all over your property or some kind of direct thing that causes you problems. Just legally discharging firearms during the day, while possibly annoying to you, does not constitute a nuisance. The smell of raising pigs or collecting junk cars would be a better case. As you point out, you are likely to loose, so save your money and stop paying the lawyers and spend your time looking for another place. Or if you don't want to move, buy some ear plugs and start sound proofing your home.. OR set up your own shooting range and make it a point of doing your shooting in the cool of the mornings on the weekends or when ever you perceive they are home and trying to sleep and it's light out. Or, all kidding aside, offer to settle your case if they agree to restrict their shooting to specific hours on specific days when you are home.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    32. Re:Malpractice.. by TopherC · · Score: 1

      In the usnews article, they break down the costs of medical malpractice into the actual lawsuits (18%) and "defensive costs" (82%). So if "Looser pays legal fees" provides some reformation but still leaves the medical practitioners open to huge settlements against them, those defensive costs will not go away.

    33. Re:Malpractice.. by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      First off, thanks for the advice: we're looking at those solutions, and others, before pursuing any legal action. This isn't due to cost (though of course it's a concern) but because, hey, who wants to sue their neighbors?

      That said, I think you went off on the tangent of looking at my specific issue, rather than the overall point i was making. I'll reverse my example: I'm the neighbor, I enjoy (lawfully) shooting on my property, and the asshole next door is making a stink about it. He's threatened to sue me. I believe I'm completely within my rights to do what I am doing, but the issue is gray enough that a jury could go either way. "Loser pays" means maybe I cave in, even though from my perspective, I should win on the merits.

      If the goal is to reduce the workload on the courts, you've succeeded. If the goal is to make the system more equitable, you've failed miserably. Both I and my neighbor may be denied access to the courts due to a chilling effect (me because I probably do not file, him because he probably caves. In the end, the less rational of us will probably win the issue, since the consequences are diminished in place of the desire to "win."). Further, in my other example (Pig Plant, Inc), defending that lawsuit is just the cost of doing business, and their pockets are deep enough that even if they lose, it's no big deal (as opposed to the financial ruin it would mean to the homeowner).

      In the context of medical malpractice, change the examples above to: I believe you killed my mother due to your negligence, while you maintain you were not negligent and did everything you could to save her life. Sorting out the facts is the job of a jury, and "loser pays" means we probably won't see one. There is no justice to be had here.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    34. Re:Malpractice.. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      In both cases, where you are sued or are being sued, it works to your advantage either way especially in cases where the outcome is uncertain.

      In the current state of things using your example, everybody pays their own lawyers up front. If you bring the suit, you pay your legal team to draw up the paperwork, pay the filing and service fees, and then pay your lawyer by the hour for all the work he does to take this to trial hopefully within 2 years. You will pay for your lawyer's time for attending hearings and depositions, fees for court recorders and transcripts, coping fees, notary fees and all sorts of charges for things you never imagine. I'd say you can expect to spend AT LEAST $2-4K to get this to trial. If you are the one sued, you will be out a bit less (assuming you don't counter sue and hire a lawyer at the same rate) between $1.5-3.5K. As you are not seeking monetary damages, best I can tell, that's about it. It goes to trial and the jury/judge gives you a judgment that neither of you will like but your lawyers make sure to get paid in advance.

      Under the "looser pays" plan, the complainant this all stays the same, with one exception, the chances for a settlement out of court goes up because as the case progresses the risk to each party of an unfavorable ruling includes the prospect of loosing and having to pay the other side's legal fees. So if you are the one who filed the suit, your up front costs remain the same, plus you are risking another $3K if you loose in court. The defendant is out $3K up front but stands to risk another $4K if they loose. I think this leads to more out of court settlements and less overall legal fees being paid because folks tend to become a bit more reasonable when there is serious money at risk. I think this will push people into a more reasonable stance and get their differences worked out OUTSIDE of the courts. If the possibility of paying the other's fees doesn't make you take pause, and you still believe your cause is just so you will win in court, all "looser pays" really does is change the how sure calculus of each party.

      Now if you want to argue that in cases like yours, where you believe the outcome to be a toss up and you are the one considering filing the lawsuit, may I suggest that "Looser pays" is EXACTLY what we need and EXACTLY the kind of case that we need to put the brakes on. As a potential Juror, I can assure you I'm not going to find in your favor given what you've said so far, so I can only assume you are letting your anger and annoyance push you into a rash decision to sue the guy next door, that you WILL loose in court, that the best you can hope for is to get some kind of settlement agreement because they don't want to pay a lawyer...

      In both cases "Looser pays" helps you. It prevents you from pushing a questionable position and it also applies more pressure to the defendant as things progress. It encourages every body to settle as soon as possible in the process, without preventing anybody from taking advantage of the process if they feel it necessary.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    35. Re:Malpractice.. by Zak3056 · · Score: 1

      I respect your opinion on the subject, but I think you're entirely sidestepping my points and focusing on my specific situation. Regardless of whether or not IT has merit (and as I noted above, my preference would be to NOT litigate) the opposite case (your neighbor just sued you), along with the asymmetrical case (deep pockets vs homeowner) remains valid.

      In the former case, YOU just got sued. Short of giving something up (which may or may not be just) you're on the hook for costs if you lose. You have a HUGE disincentive to defend yourself, and a huge incentive to capitulate, at least in part. In the latter case, deep pocket defendants become lawsuit proof unless the case is a slam dunk.

      I'm personally not a fan of Solomonic justice--disastrous consequences as an incentive to settle is something to be avoided, not encouraged.

      --
      What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard to understand?
    36. Re:Malpractice.. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      i don't get why you talk about the s versus z when obviously everyone who writes it wrong is thinking/talking about the "oo".

      The spelling nazis must all suffer from a certain mental disability which we "lazy spellers" don't grasp.

      What exactly is your thaught process that makes you stop when you are writing and say to your self: UH OH! CAUTION, we are about to write the WORD LOOZE, WHICH IS NOT WRITTEN 'LOOZE" but 'lose'. Puh, so glad, that I realized in time that I was about to missspell it (and why is miss spell if written as one word not written as missspell?)

      Sorry, the people who write simple words like "lose" wrong, don't have that "UH OH, I HAVE TO STOP HERE AND THINK HOW TO WRITE IT" meta mind thought level.

      And I have absolutely no idea how you tech that to people and how you seriously can expect that every person has that "self control" "mind awareness" or how ever you want to call it.

      I would gladly write every word perfectly ... however ... as should be clear from my writing above: no person ever was able to teach me, nor am I aware of any literature that explains how to teach or learn writing/spelling.

      If you know how to teach it, or how I can learn it: write a book and become a billionaire.

      Otherwise I would suggest: shut up! You are annoying me! You go onto my nerves! You are political incorrect! You are a racist ... erm, how do you call one who is talking bad about people who don't see/notice their spelling mistakes?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    37. Re:Malpractice.. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      You see, the "s" in "loser" and "lose" has a "z" sound, while it retains its "s" sound
      No, I did not know that. I never heard one speaking it that distinguished, however I as a german also don't here the difference between a sz and s and ss (the first one is written with a letter looking like B)

      Despite the fact that you and I both clearly understood what as meant, a non-native English speaker might be confused by this
      There you are wrong. As I'm german, all those words mean the same thing and translate to the exact same german word and I assume that is the case for many languages. Ah, well, you could argue about the "exact same word" as "Verlierer" and "Flüchtling" or "Flüchtiger" are not exactly the same, or in your wallet example: "lose" (yes, same word even, just spoken in a germany way).

      Anyway, the problem is the "u:" sound as written in the phonetic spelling, not the s versus z.

      People want to write u: as oo, as on book, school or pool etc. that itis written in a "special exception case" as a single "o" is extremely confusing.

      And even more confusing is: you spelling nazis don't grasp that. You are riding on the clear distinction of the s versus z ... which is not clear at all.

      I just learned (after 30+ years of speaking english) that americans don't say 'zed' to the letter 'z' but say it (when spelling out a word" as a vibrating 's'.

      Unfortunately I was on a radio and had to repeat it, and always stumbled over completely misspelled words.

      Your fuel is really 's' 'e' 'r' 'o' ??? .., don't remember what it was, but spelling the "z" like an "s" (which is the way many european languages speak the S) was quite disturbing. Until one realized my problem and spoke both consonants and told me the difference.

      When I spell out english words, I e.g. have learned:
      eX
      wY
      Zed

      Not: eX, wY, eSSS ... ah, no, it was CCCeee? WTF, can't even remember that ;D

      Anyway, the people writing lose wrong do it because the "u" sound of the "o" versus "oo".

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    38. Re:Malpractice.. by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      as on book, school or pool

      The "oo" in "school" and "pool" sound the same, "book", however, does not.

      And the irony of you calling me a spelling nazi.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    39. Re:Malpractice.. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      Sorry, for a non american: they do sound the same, or why the funk sake do you think I made that example?
      Because I'm super bad in making examples?

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    40. Re:Malpractice.. by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Oh, sorry, but if you are facing Daddy War Bucks, your troubles don't really change all that much. Your liability and risk may be different between the two systems, but Mr. War Bucks will never really care either way. He won't care about settling because it's chump change to him either way. But it is MORE coin if he looses and my system is in place, so if your cause is just and you are sure of the win, sue on. If you are not so sure you will prevail, then I wonder why you are suing in the first place?

      Where I see your point, the financial risk is proportionally bigger for you than the rich guy, it really doesn't matter if you know you will win. If you press a loosing hand and loose, I guess you pay for being stupid. If this risk of loosing causes you second thoughts because your case is not sure enough or the risk is too great if you have to fork over legal fees when you loose, how's this different from then stringing you along with delays, requesting hearing after hearing, document after document, deposition after deposition, costing you legal fees you cannot afford now where everybody pays their own costs?

      I don't care what system you choose, if you try to take a rich guy to the mat in court, even if you know you will win, they can drag you though more legal fees than you ever dreamed possible because they can afford it and you can't. Looser pays doesn't change this by all that much, and perhaps will serve to keep the "I'm angry so I'm suing you for some crazy reason" lawsuits in check.

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    41. Re: Malpractice.. by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      No need to get snotty, just soak up the knowledge.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    42. Re: Malpractice.. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      You did not explain the difference ... so no knowledge gained :D

      And I bet your explanaition will be wrong: you will say in one word the oo is longer than in the other. However: they will likely still sound the same.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    43. Re: Malpractice.. by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Actually, it's nothing to do with length. Do you know how to read pronunciation keys? If so, co back to the links I originally sent you for loose/lose and look at the pronunciation, the look up "book" and "pool" and you'll see the difference. Slashdot doesn't support the characters required for me to be able to explain it any better.

      Furthermore, I am surprised that you did not recognize that the English "loose" is actually "lose" (also possibly "locker", "los", "frei", "weit", or "offen") in German, it is the synonym of the German word "eng" and nearly synonymous with the English word "slack". The English "lose", on the other hand, translates to "verlieren" and is synonymous with the English "shed".

      In English, "loose" vs "lose" is the German equivalent of "locker" vs "verlieren" or "end" vs "finden".

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    44. Re: Malpractice.. by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Autocorrect messed that up, "correcting" a couple German words to similarly spelled English words. Ignore that post and I'll post the corrected version when I get to a computer. Also, I made a logic error...

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    45. Re: Malpractice.. by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I almost forgot to post the corrected version. Here it is:

      Actually, it's nothing to do with length. Do you know how to read pronunciation keys? If so, go back to the links I originally sent you for loose/lose and look at the pronunciation, then look up "book" and "pool" and you'll see the difference. Slashdot doesn't support the characters required for me to be able to explain it any better.

      Furthermore, I am surprised that you did not recognize that the English "loose" is actually "lose" (also possibly "locker", "los", "frei", "weit", or "offen") in German, it is the opposite of the German word "eng" and nearly synonymous with the English word "slack". The English "lose", on the other hand, translates to "verlieren" and is synonymous with the English "shed".

      In English, "loose" vs "lose" is the German equivalent of "locker" vs "verlieren" or "eng" vs "finden".

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    46. Re: Malpractice.. by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      I know the difference between lose and loose.
      However I have to think hard about which word to use in which situation, as I can not memorize which word is which.
      Also: they both sound the same to me, even after your links telling me the differences in the S sound (I don't hear that difference).
      So my conclusion is: plenty of native english speakers have no idea when to use which spelling either.
      Regarding book and pool, I will check, because of curiosity.
      But I can not imagine how one 'oo' in one word might sound different than the other 'oo' in the other word, except if you speak the queens english, where obviously every word has its own pronounciation and the spelling is only a vague hint how to pronounce it ;)

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    47. Re: Malpractice.. by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      Welcome to English. I can't even argue with you at this point; anyone who calls English a language is lying to themselves; it's a set of languages, all loosely related by a general set of rules, but with their own specifics. Some would say those are simply different dialects of the language, but the fact is we've got "Queen's" English, "American" English, "Queens" English (note the missing apostrophe, I'm referring to the Brooklyn accent here), and now the Millenials have their own made-up rules and I'm, like, not sure, you know, like, what to like, call it or whatever. (Yes, that was an example of that "dialect")

      You could almost compare it to Perl, but at least you can run Perl code through a debugger to make sense of what it's trying to do most of the time.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
  9. This by s.petry · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't agree with every position he has, but he sits squarely in the "Mostly Libertarian" camp. The exception I believe is his stance on abortion, which like most progressives fails to recognize that two people are required to make a baby. Too many exceptions and way too much to just answer as he did. He also seems to have the NSA and Cyber Security as conflicting ideas. In theory, regulation should make the NSA the protectors of US border Cyber Space, instead of being the gestapo hunting down the anti-establishment people.

    I'd still not vote for him though, for the same reason I would not vote Trump. As much as I agree with their current rhetoric they both have a past full of abusing the law and people for personal gain. We all make mistakes, but if you don't come clean and apologize I doubt that you have magically become a better person all of a sudden. Possible, sure.. Probable? Hardly.

    --

    -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    1. Re:This by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      If the laws are unjust then they're fine to abuse.

      How long were people committing sodomy in Texas before it was repealed?

    2. Re:This by ITRambo · · Score: 1

      Now you have to tell me, please, since I don't live in Texas.

    3. Re:This by DogDude · · Score: 1

      like most progressives fails to recognize that two people are required to make a baby

      Yeah, a guy's 30 seconds of friction and little squirt are equivalent to a woman's pregnancy and childbirth subsequent recovery. Spot on.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    4. Re:This by operagost · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If this is the case, why do we have child support?

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    5. Re:This by Major+Blud · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Yeah, a guy's 30 seconds of friction and little squirt are equivalent to a woman's pregnancy and childbirth subsequent recovery. Spot on."

      It's a shame that the 30 seconds of friction and little squirt are equivalent to 18 years of child support.

      --
      If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
    6. Re: This by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1
      Actually, it's "one woman and a turkey baster." :-)

      He almost makes Trump look better by comparison.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    7. Re:This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, a guy's 30 seconds of friction and little squirt are equivalent to a woman's pregnancy and childbirth subsequent recovery. Spot on.

      You seem to think that s.petry wants the dude to be able to veto a decision to abort. Why is that?

    8. Re:This by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      I don't either, but considering the demographic of certain parts of Texas that have been around for...quite some time since before the law was repealed...

    9. Re:This by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      In fact, have you seen Full Metal Jacket? Remember what the drill sergeant said about people from Texas?

    10. Re:This by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

      You learn something new every day. Until now I never knew that sarcastic comments within the context of a movie counted as actual documentary evidence of historical fact.

      Thanks, slashdot! And damn the naysayers!

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    11. Re:This by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      4th trimester abortions, during which the father gets to make the call.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    12. Re:This by TheCarp · · Score: 2

      > "Mostly Libertarian" camp. The exception I believe is his stance on abortion, which like most progressives fails to recognize that two people are required to make a baby.

      How is that any exception? "A woman's body is her own" sounds pretty libertarian to me. In fact, I fail to see how claiming dominion over someone else's medical choices in any way qualifies as libertarian. It is absolute anathema to the core. If libertarianism means ANYTHING at all other than just another label....then it means the primacy of personal choice.

      If anything, I see a libertarian as more pro-choice than the pro-choice people. Because when most people say "I am pro choice" they literally mean "I am ok with abortion being legal". When I say I am "pro-choice", oh I mean that....and MUCH MUCH more. I am pro....choice....in all personal choices; in all medical choices; everything.

      Nobody at all has a right to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term. Nobody has the right to tell her she can't arm herself and bear those arms, nor to tell her what flowers she can grow or dry or smoke. Nobody has the any of those rights; because if they did, then we don't have liberty.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    13. Re: This by maharvey · · Score: 1

      Turkey drippings cause pregnancy? Damn, I should have paid more attention in Health class! I was sure that a man was involved in the process somewhere.

    14. Re:This by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Perhaps I misunderstand, or you responded to the wrong person but exactly what laws here are unjust?

      McAfee is an admitted drug abuser, potential murderer, and admitted to sexually abusing young teenage girls (sorry, he admitted to screwing a 15 year old but legally it's abuse). The drug use for himself is fine, but there are also hints that he was trafficking and selling. Not quite so fine when we go there. He was also feeding drugs and alcohol to those same teenage girls so that he could bang them.

      Trump abused his wealth to steal people's property on numerous occasions using cronyism to get the Government to abuse eminent domain. He flaunted US bankruptcy laws for personal gain. Anecdotally we have reports that he used illegal immigrants as indentured servants in hotels and on construction sites. Okay, he's not out giving drugs to 15 year old girls to get them into bed, but using wealth to strong arm rob people of private property is how much better?

      Like I said, maybe your comment was addressed toward someone else, or maybe you were just ignorant to what I was referring to. Sure, unjust laws should be ignored. That is not what happened here, and not what I was referring to at all.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    15. Re:This by Type44Q · · Score: 0

      I don't agree with every position he has

      I'd be surprised if you did; as they're based entirely on logic and common sense, their reasons are bound to be confusing to most.

    16. Re:This by s.petry · · Score: 1

      PURE GENIUS! Everything related to Politics, Sociology, and Economics is purely true/false! And for thousands of years the most brilliant minds society produced has had to debate each of those because we were under the impression that there was no "true/false" dialogue with issues this complex and far reaching. My goodness, if only people like Socrates, Plato, Aquinas, Franklin, Newton, etc.. had met a genius like you.

      And then there is reality, which is why I have studied these subjects for 40 years and still see no true/false answers.

      Bad form to troll after being called out for idiocy, so just take your lumps.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    17. Re:This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Being alive doesn't grant you the right to exist as a parasite inside of somebody else.

      Nobody argues for anybody to ever get that right, except when it's a pregnancy.

      You can't force somebody to donate a kidney, even if it saves a life, and call it murder if you refuse to donate the kidney. Even if you get the kidney back within 9 months when another compatible donor dies. Why are you allowed to force a person to donate their uterus?

    18. Re:This by Pseudonym · · Score: 2

      "Entirely"? How does this make sense?

      Healthcare costs would be cut by 75% if medical malpractice lawsuits were outlawed or at least massively curtailed.

      Outlawing (or curtailing) recourse when someone harms you is the most anti-libertarian thing there is.

      --
      sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
    19. Re:This by Tom · · Score: 1

      his stance on abortion, which like most progressives fails to recognize that two people are required to make a baby.

      The making part is not what the whole abortion thing is all about. Sure the issue is tricky, but with his very straight approach, we would definitely have a very good solution, and solving the rare "man wants the baby, woman doesn't" case will be much easier than the current situation.

      We all make mistakes, but if you don't come clean and apologize I doubt that you have magically become a better person all of a sudden. Possible, sure.. Probable? Hardly.

      I'm the opposite. I don't trust "good people". Knowing that we are all human and we all make mistakes, it is more likely that they are tricky and good at hiding bodies than it is that they are actually flawless.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    20. Re:This by Tom · · Score: 1

      It's not just child support. Try to get out of a marriage without losing your life savings once there is a child.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    21. Re:This by aaaaaaargh! · · Score: 1

      Nobody forced you to marry or make a child, though.

    22. Re:This by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Until now I never knew that sarcastic comments within the context of a movie counted as actual documentary evidence of historical fact.

      At first I read that slack-jawed, but now I realise you must be joking.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    23. Re:This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a legal cut off date to pregnancy. What's wrong with that? And it's fairly early into the pregnancy in my opinion.

      You put too much value on the lives of people, we are animals like everything else. If anything this voluntary culling at best a minor assistance on the growing population that needs to be regulated anyways.

    24. Re:This by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Basic high school level biology is all I need to know a fetus is not an independent being capable of understanding anything. I could not reconcile it having a right to life with eating meat, because even a cow is closer to deserving of rights than a fetus. Spoiler alert: I eat meat.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    25. Re:This by Tom · · Score: 1

      That's not the point.

      There are some things seriously wrong with the world right now, and they are based on ancient and - by our current understanding - wrong concepts of human social needs.

      Women used to belong to a man, and some of the conclusions from that are still in place. One of the reasons abortion is such a hot potato is that there's still fragments of the idea that a woman is just a breeding machine for the man, a tool for making him an heir.

      At the same time, men are equally disadvantaged by these old assumptions. That in a divorce generally the man is the financial loser is based on the assumption that women are economically weaker, if not entirely dependent, and need continued access to the mans income to survive.

      In a truly equal world, we would laugh about both these ideas. We would tell a man who wants to have a say in his woman's abortion that he can put the kid in his own belly if he wants it so much. And we would tell a woman to go and find a job when she fishes for her man's salary in divorce proceedings.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    26. Re:This by ultranova · · Score: 1

      I don't agree with every position he has

      I'd be surprised if you did; as they're based entirely on logic and common sense, their reasons are bound to be confusing to most.

      If McAfee's positions are based on logic, why do you try to to associate them with an argument from intimidation?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    27. Re:This by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      I used to think that way. Ron Paul's essay on abortion helped change my mind. More recently, knowing the world is flat means we were definitely created, thus there's a creator, and I don't think it wants us to be killing for pleasure.

      "They" also said I wouldn't be harmed by the circumcision. "They" were wrong. (In response to your "not an independent being capable of understanding anything", like they said I was at that point and thus no anaesthetic, or more to the point consent, was given.) It is a child of light and love and is deserving of the utmost protections from harm. It's sad that there exist people in the world who choose their own pleasure over the gift of childbirth. I understand that one root cause is fractional reserve banking and the tribe behind it, promoting feminism to destroy the family; and, if created, then perhaps it's all preordained anyway and I should just relax and let the murders happen. But they're murder. They shouldn't be happening, and through logic and love if I can prevent a death then perhaps that's what I'm here for.

      Note that I have no connection with "anti-abortionists" who murder doctors. That's still, also, murder.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    28. Re:This by s.petry · · Score: 1

      This is not some ancient belief system we are talking about, and it's not about women being owned. This is basic biology and evolution that occurred over millions of years. The former is pure bullshit spread primarily by Marxists who are attempting to engineer the society that they want. How does it feel to be a pawn exactly? That last is rhetorical and intended for you to contemplate not answer.

      Here are some facts for you to consider.

      1. Women must carry a child and are the only sex that can breast feed. With the exception of the last couple decades, If the child did not have a way of breast feeding the child died. Not sometimes, but always. This is why women sold themselves as wet nurses, villages had midwives, and often generations of women would share the same dwelling. No woman with milk meant extinction.

      2. Child rearing is time consuming. If you dump yours off at daycare you are not rearing your child, you are letting the stated do that for you. Rearing a child is not however a 100% of the time task, and as children age they can help with certain tasks (which teaches them how to perform them).

      3. Smaller tasks like cooking, mending, sewing, knitting, etc.. do not require massive amounts of muscle. In fact fine motor skills require the opposite of massive amounts of muscle. On the other hand, killing a 100 lb deer, cleaning it, and dragging it home before the bears eat both you and the deer DOES require massive muscle. Men evolved larger and with more muscle mass.

      4. As with item 1 there is a very brief amount of history in which food and clothing were readily available at a store. In fact there are many areas where its still an issue for people to get basic food, and if they didn't sew their own they would have no clothing at all. Given the facts provided in 2 and 3 evolution is why women stayed at home and men went out to work.

      Until very recent times, the overwhelming majority of jobs were physical labor. So again this is not some ownership ancient belief, but evolutionary biology at work.

      So you want to erase the evolution for one aspect and completely ignore evolution for others? You can't, or at least you can't and not be morally bankrupt.

      I have no idea how people can be so ignorant, and blind to their own idiocy.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    29. Re:This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So your world view is that a growing fetus is a parasite? Please go kill yourself so that you never reproduce. Damn nanny state has prevented nature from snuffing out complete idiots like yourself.

    30. Re:This by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Your first paragraph completely contradicts itself. You start by agreeing with me that it's extremely complex, but then relegate the issue to a single aspect as the entirety of the argument. You then do the same thing with your 2nd paragraph. All "good" people are bad in your world view.

      I'm not going to teach you how to think, just point out that you are probably suffering from severe headaches from cognitive dissonance.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    31. Re:This by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Would you care to tell me when abortion has been considered murder, either by law or by general social acceptance? About one-quarter of the US is anti-abortion, so that doesn't count.

      Back when that commandment was made, the fetus was not considered important at all until "quickening".

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    32. Re: This by malignant_minded · · Score: 1

      McAfee is an admitted drug abuser So are a lot of us, that isnt really a character flaw by itself. potential murderer Belize has never followed up with the charges and somehow his house burned down after he left. I suspect there is more to the story than we know but my suspicions lead me to believe their is corruption involved that Belize would not want to surface if they pressed the case. and admitted to sexually abusing young teenage girls (sorry, he admitted to screwing a 15 year old but legally it's abuse). Were they 15? I can't find anything that lists their age. Anyway Belize age of consent is 16 and under to 14 is a misdemeanor so even if they were 15 it doesn't seem to be a big deal especially given that 14 year olds can marry there. The drug use for himself is fine, but there are also hints that he was trafficking and selling. Not quite so fine when we go there. They have to be procured from someone; last time I checked drugs were illegal to manufacture or use in many countries. He was also feeding drugs and alcohol to those same teenage girls so that he could bang them. Citation? Trump abused his wealth to steal people's property on numerous occasions using cronyism to get the Government to abuse eminent domain. He flaunted US bankruptcy laws for personal gain. Anecdotally we have reports that he used illegal immigrants as indentured servants in hotels and on construction sites. Okay, he's not out giving drugs to 15 year old girls to get them into bed, but using wealth to strong arm rob people of private property is how much better? Actually I would say it is much worse as I suspect those girls (it seems Mcafee is a crazy party animal after a good time but that doesn't mean he is forcing anyone to party) could leave at anytime in contrast to the indentured servitude.

    33. Re:This by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every human being alive is a potential murderer. What do you even mean by this?

    34. Re:This by Tom · · Score: 1

      Good that you spot the contradictions. Here is the point: Yes, the world is complex and complicated. But to act, you need to stop overthinking and focus on the main point.

      The person most affected by pregnancy is the woman (you could argue the child, but biologically, at this point, they are one and the same). If the man wants a baby very much, he can just go and fuck the next woman the next day. He has more options. That is why her decision is more important. She is more affected and has less options.

      The more likely scenario when you encounter an apparently holy person is that they've hidden the bodies well. We are all humans and we all make mistakes. When I know which mistakes you've made and what flaws you have, I know what I'm getting myself into. When I don't see it, I cannot calculate the risks.

      And I don't say that all good people are bad. I say that "good" and "bad" are reductionist terms that are not appropriate to a complex world.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    35. Re:This by Tom · · Score: 1

      Of course you an massage the facts all you want. But here's some points to consider on your end:

      In the animal kingdom, sometimes the male and sometimes the female of the species is bigger and stronger. So much for the muscles argument.

      Even in human societies, the distribution of labor is by no means identical everywhere. There are a couple indigenous people still around where women take what we consider male roles, while males are closer (but not identical) to what we would consider female - up to jungle versions of make up.

      Yes, woman breed children and breast-feed them. I don't see why there is a contradiction with anything I said. It especially doesn't explain why abortion should be a decision made by the man. On the contrary, it strengthens my arguments.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    36. Re:This by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Here is the point: Yes, the world is complex and complicated. But to act, you need to stop overthinking and focus on the main point.

      We were not discussing "the world", we were discussing a single action. Once again you relegate the issue to a single statement, though this time it's not a "guy wanting to keep" but a "guy fucking to get". The male perspective is only part of the dialogue on abortion, and the smallest to discuss. The bigger discussion is when the fetus is considered a human with all of the liberties and rights of other humans.

      You can not argue my point and have repeatedly demonstrated that you are nothing more than a troll.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    37. Re:This by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      > I understand that one root cause is fractional reserve banking and the tribe behind it

      Your trolling is really trying too hard.

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    38. Re:This by Tom · · Score: 1

      The bigger discussion is when the fetus is considered a human with all of the liberties and rights of other humans.

      Which is total bullshit with one purely semantic argument pro, namely that if you think in binary terms you have to start the attribution somewhere and every other point is just as arbitrary, so you can just as well choose conception.

      We were not discussing "the world", we were discussing a single action.

      The single action is absolutely trivial until you start seing it in context, and only then all these complexities come in. Your action is not seperate from the world. Without the liberties and rights of humans, that you mention, abortion isn't even an issue at all. Without the conditions of the woman involved, it isn't even an issue. It is these circumstances, ethics, cultural and religious factors that make it into an issue at all. Without them, the discussion would be very short. "Nancy want's an abortion." - "Yes. And?"

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    39. Re:This by aestrivex · · Score: 1

      I don't agree with every position he has, but he sits squarely in the "Mostly Libertarian" camp. The exception I believe is his stance on abortion, which like most progressives fails to recognize that two people are required to make a baby.

      Having no law restricting abortion is firmly libertarian. Having a law restricting abortion, is government enforcement.

      Whether as some people argue (ludicrously in my view) that the unborn child has rights in the eyes of the law and therefore it is OK to have laws punishing any aggressors, it is completely undeniable that this is a legislative proposal for laws that do not currently exist. I think it would be a stretch philosophically to say that the choice not to have children, and instead to have them aborted, is a threat to a functioning, orderly society with no excess laws, the one which libertarians dream of.

      The fact that many libertarians in the US -- especially libertarians who are also evangelical christians and catholics -- fail to recognize that nonlegislation of abortion is as ideologically libertarian a cause as could be championed (and which was championed famously by Ayn Rand) does not make it not so.

      Disclaimer: I am not a libertarian and I am not defending libertarian ideas.

    40. Re:This by s.petry · · Score: 1

      Having no law restricting abortion is firmly libertarian. Having a law restricting abortion, is government enforcement.

      You are confusing Libertarian with Anarchist. Nothing else you claim can be, or should be trusted on the subject.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    41. Re:This by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Not trolling. Read actual history. You seem angry, perhaps a diet change would help?

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  10. 5% not 75% by LetterRip · · Score: 1

    Medical malpractice adds perhaps 5% to total medical costs, there is no way we could cut costs by 75% even if all lawsuits were eliminated.

    1. Re:5% not 75% by OzPeter · · Score: 2

      Medical malpractice adds perhaps 5% to total medical costs, there is no way we could cut costs by 75% even if all lawsuits were eliminated.

      Its more insidious than that. Eliminating the lawsuits may reduce costs, but how do you eliminate the malpractice in the first place?

      That says to me that he has no clue and should stick to what he does best.

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re:5% not 75% by GLMDesigns · · Score: 2

      You're not including all the CYA procedures and you're conveniently not including procedures that hospitals add in order to protect themselves. It may not be 75% but it's substantial.

      Just look at the cost of malpractice insurance in 1960 and 2010. If you were a doctor and had to pay $500,000/year in insurance as opposed to $25,000 how much more would you have to charge each patient? How many more CYA procedures would you authorize?

      Again, there may not be a 75% reduction but it would be a hell of a lot more than 5%.

      --
      If you're scared of your govt then you need to further restrict its powers
      Vote 3rd Party in 2016 and beyond
    3. Re:5% not 75% by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Those are costs directly associated with Malpractice. There are a shit ton of additional costs associated that aren't direct. It is just like insurance, there is the cost of insurance, and then there is the back office costs associated with it that aren't direct. All these extra costs have driven health care costs through the roof.

      There is no incentive to streamline any of these extra costs, because the people imposing them aren't the ones bearing them. Ultimately, it is us the end user/consumer that bears the full cost of all these extra costs.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    4. Re: 5% not 75% by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1
      Don't make winning a lawsuit the same as winning a lottery.

      An armed society is NOT a polite society. If it were, there'd be no real problems in the middle east, or even Detroit.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    5. Re: 5% not 75% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not? It's just about as unlikely and doesn't have any effect on the guilty party (who tends to have lottery amounts of money) otherwise.

    6. Re:5% not 75% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not all that impressive of a difference even with your ass pull numbers after inflation...

    7. Re:5% not 75% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've been told by doctors who own their own practices and administrators from larger hospitals that the mess we call insurance increases the costs by nearly 100%. We could cut costs in half if we were able to get rid of all the paper work of insurance. Of course that will never happen, but there's a lot of room for improvement.

    8. Re:5% not 75% by tlambert · · Score: 1

      That's not all that impressive of a difference even with your ass pull numbers after inflation...

      It's pretty impressive, actually. $25,000 in inflation adjusted dollars would be $199,670.06 today. Not $500,000.

      So that's a 2.5X increase in malpractice insurance costs.

    9. Re: 5% not 75% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An armed society is NOT a polite society. If it were, there'd be no real problems in the middle east, or even Detroit.

      You say that but, the next time you hear of an armed gunman running loose down at the local mall, I want you to run down there and start taunting the gunman and telling him that his mother's a whore and would be better off dead and that his father was the milkman.

      No? Why not? Because you're not stupid? An armed society is a polite society, indeed.

      That doesn't make it right but not everyone in Detroit is armed. Nor is everyone armed in the Middle East.

      This is not advocating for an armed society. It's pointing out that you're wrong. Obviously we all should not be running around brandishing firearms. That's just dangerous. However, if we did, you can bet your ass we'd be far more polite. If you don't believe me, reflect on how you'd act in the above proposed situation. You can bet your ass you'd be as polite as a saint. Don't bother with internet bravado - it's true. We know. You know.

    10. Re: 5% not 75% by ACE209 · · Score: 1

      In my opinion OP was spot on.

      Guns make you cocky - not polite.

      I admit though, a gun pointed at you can make you polite temporarily.

      --
      "we are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further."
    11. Re: 5% not 75% by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Taunting him would be likely to get others killed (collateral damage). Why would I do that? Easier to talk to them. Especially since guns have terrible accuracy well before the shooter would be out of range to carry on a discussion. And he'd have to see me. If I'm safe behind a corner, who has the advantage? Not the shooter. Far better than having a dozen armed shoppers shooting everything in sight.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  11. His stance on guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    In any case, I do not believe that guns are the problem. On the other hand, Gun Free Zones appear to be a serious problem. Every mass shooting for the past 20 years has occurred in a gun free zone.

    I disagree. I have never heard of a mass shooting anywhere near a Free Gun Zone. In fact, we need more Free Gun Zones. I wish there were Free Gun Zones near where I live.

    Oh, he said Gun Free Zones? Never mind.

  12. Oblig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After all that you still never told us how to UNINSTALL MCAFFE ANTIVIRUS, YOU CLOD.

    1. Re:Oblig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After all that you still never told us how to UNINSTALL MCAFFE ANTIVIRUS, YOU CLOD.

      Because he is still working for them. *x files theme*

    2. Re: Oblig by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      Two options nuke the hard drive and reinstall the OS, or install a different OS.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    3. Re:Oblig by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Search Youtube. He showed you.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re:Oblig by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      At least he's not an insensitive clod...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  13. Who the hell by operagost · · Score: 2

    complains about naked people at the beach, people pissing by the road, or unusual food when they're traveling? What an odd straw man... one he implies does not, of course, apply to him.

    I'm tired of having other Americans throw me under the bus. I can't choose how the rest of the world sees me, but I certainly am not going to allow another American to perpetuate the nonsense of the ugly American.

    It's a shame that a man with many good ideas has to ruin an interview with irrelevant pontification.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    1. Re:Who the hell by PvtVoid · · Score: 0

      I'm tired of having other Americans throw me under the bus. I can't choose how the rest of the world sees me, but I certainly am not going to allow another American to perpetuate the nonsense of the ugly American.

      Oh, please.

      I always think the same thing when I arrive at the airport waiting area for a flight back to the U.S. after an extended trip abroad. Something along the lines of "Who are these people? They're fat. They're loud. They're rude. They complain constantly. They have accents like constipated ducks ... Oh, right: they're Americans."

    2. Re:Who the hell by Thud457 · · Score: 2

      Seems like McAfee's (alleged?) behavior in Belize and environs hits a lot of those "ugly American" tropes pretty hard.
      Just sayin'.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    3. Re:Who the hell by operagost · · Score: 1

      Do us a favor and next time you leave, don't come back.

      Our accents sound like constipated ducks? And no one in the rest of the world ever complains... because you don't understand their languages.

      Please.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    4. Re:Who the hell by kaatochacha · · Score: 1

      I can remember once being in Paris, and the only loud, obnoxious , constantly complaining Americans I saw? A student tour group from that inclusive, multicultural bastion of humanity, UC Berkeley.
      The rest of us stumbled with French, asked nicely, and generally had no issues.

    5. Re:Who the hell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Something along the lines of "Who are these people? ...They're loud. They're rude. They complain constantly.

      Funny enough, my previous job involved a lot of travel around Asia, and more often than not they weren't American. Quite frequently they weren't even from an English speaking country, and I've seen plenty of rude, complaining people from Spain, France, Germany, Italy, and Scandinavia. Also, Chinese and Australians were a lot more common to be on holiday in non-China Asian countries, and many of them also stood out. It is much harder to notice the large number of people from those places that weren't being obnoxious, even if they had an uncommon skin colour. But those that were rude at any place vaguely touristy are now quite diverse. I've lost track of the languages I've heard from people that have hit me with a selfie stick or tried sticking a camera in front of my face to take a picture while blocking my view at the same time.

  14. Ross Ulbricht? by EthanDemurs · · Score: 1

    Why him? Is it to make a point? His semi-celebrity status? I'm not saying that he doesn't deserve to be pardoned but I'm sure there are more worthy cyber-political prisoners out there.

    1. Re:Ross Ulbricht? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Is it to make a point?

      Sure, just like his life sentencing for drugs was to make a point. Like it or not, Ulbricht has become a symbol for much more powerful people.

      "What you did in connection with Silk Road was terribly destructive to our social fabric" - Judge Katherine B. Forrest

    2. Re:Ross Ulbricht? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They're all hypocrites in my book. I legally get 380mg of Methadone per day, and they don't care, but they lose their shit when heroin is mentioned. 25-75mg of Methadone will kill someone with no tolerance to opiates, and unlike heroin, has an extremely long half life (the amount of time it takes for the level in your system to reduce by half) that averages 20+ hours.

      The main reason heroin overdoses happen is quality control. If someone normally gets 70% and ends up getting 98% they will die if they iv their usual.

    3. Re:Ross Ulbricht? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was on 32 mg of Suboxone. I gave up. I've gone back to extracting Fentanyl from the mylar patches. Methadone doesn't even touch me.

  15. Neighbor by nycsubway · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Didn't he kill his neighbor and evade questioning from the Belize police? I don't really care what he has to stand for, the guy seems nuts. Some sort of reliability is important for a president president... or at least apparent competency.

    1. Re:Neighbor by bobbied · · Score: 1

      Look, that McAfee even thinks and acts like he has a chance makes him as nuts as the bulk of the fringe crazies who sign up as a presidential contender. Everybody knows that it will boil down to two major candidates from the two major parties, nobody else matters except in how many votes they can suck off the two major contenders. McAfee won't get more votes than I can count on my fingers and toes from people who are actually wanting him to be president. He's crazy.

      But McAfee has a long sorted history of crazy behavior so why shouldn't this be any different? My guess is he's just enjoying the publicity this all gets him and that's about all he really wants, unless he really is crazy...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    2. Re:Neighbor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You just said he's crazy, then went on to make speculations around the hypothesis that he might not be crazy and guarded against the possibility that he might be crazy. That sounds like you are both crazy.

    3. Re:Neighbor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First candidate for President, that I know of ever, who needed to answer the question "John, have you ever murdered anyone?"

      Response: "I have never murdered anyone ..."

      OK, good to know!

    4. Re:Neighbor by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      But McAfee has a long sorted history of crazy behavior so why shouldn't this be any different?

      So, his craziness starts small, and only grows in size?

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    5. Re:Neighbor by bobbied · · Score: 1

      I am NOT having a good word usage day. Please apply the following: s/sorted/Sordid/...

      --
      "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    6. Re:Neighbor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My guess is he's just enjoying the publicity this all gets him and that's about all he really wants

      I'm convinced this is why a lot of people are running for president. Maybe Donald Trump has a big enough ego and is crazy enough to think he can actually win, but some of the others are making a name for themselves and will be looking for large speaking fees, writing books and looking for a sweet gig on a cable "news" network. (BTW, this is exactly Ann Coulter's strategy for earning a living, but she doesn't actually have to bother running for office - she just says outrageous shit to rile people up both for and against her. She's repeatedly admitted as much on national TV. She's very good at it but I don't think she believes half the shit she says.)

      That actually seems like a pretty good gig if you can get it. The longer they can hang on and the more headlines they can get the bigger their potential.

      I've noted a similar trend locally. We've got a couple of people in my town who are crackpots who have figured out how to get on the ballot even though they have no chance. They sometimes have some interesting ideas along with their crazy ones.

      I'm seriously thinking of voting for one of them for school district director just because fuck the incumbent and I know he has no chance anyway, so why not? 3 other local races have candidates running unopposed. I will not be voting in any of those races. Maybe I should run for one of them next time. I couldn't do worse than some of them. At least I could make a better website.

    7. Re: Neighbor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sordid not sorted. Sheesh. That's as bad as should of instead of should have.

    8. Re:Neighbor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Didn't he kill his neighbor"

      No.

      " and evade questioning from the Belize police?

      No. He evaded their preferred method of questioning, behind their closed doors. I would too. I'm guessing you would too.

      He has made public offers to submit to questioning in neutral territory. The authorities in Belize expressed no interest whatsoever.

  16. So, your plan to overcome the two-party system... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Is to wish really, really hard and think those good, positive thoughts.

    I'm sure that will work out well for you.

  17. 1980 is clear if you understand history by roman_mir · · Score: 1, Interesting

    There is nothing unknown about the causes of rising depression in 1980, it was rooted in the economic problems of the seventies, caused by government defaulting on the gold dollar in 1971, which itself was caused by massive government spending of 1950s and 1960s, which came out of the idea that it is OK to print, borrow and spend. All of this rooted in the wrong Keynesian lessons derived from 1930s, when the depression was caused by USA Fed and government in 1925 and generally after the act of 1917, which allowed the Fed to monetise the USA debt. The Fed and the IRS were created in 1913, leading to these problems, however that is not the beginning of the story. This story began with Hamilton and his 3 reports on the economy, giving rise to the idea that central bank should exist, that government can borrow for government programs and then monetise the debt.

    The real problem is collectivism.

    1. Re:1980 is clear if you understand history by PvtVoid · · Score: 2

      Let me get this straight: you think that mass shootings happen because we went off the gold standard?

    2. Re:1980 is clear if you understand history by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Getting off the gold was a symptom of government promises and expenses that cannot be paid for. Government expenses that cannot be paid for are a symptom of bad governance and in the case of USA it was caused by collectivism or the idea that government should at all participate in the economy and money management.

      Do not pervert what I said.

    3. Re:1980 is clear if you understand history by PvtVoid · · Score: 1

      Riiight. Lanza and Roof and Rodger and Hasan were actually upset about the deficit. That explains everything, man!

      Were you frightened as a child by Alan Greenspan or something?

    4. Re:1980 is clear if you understand history by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      No, people are not specifically driven by deficit, they are however products of the borked society that is what it is because the economy is fucked up. McAfee noticed that the antidepressant drug usage went up in 1980, would I say that the people on antidepressants directly cared about the deficit and the stagflation of 1970s? Probably not (some more than others), however stagflation is reflected in the mass media, it is reflected in the overall feeling throughout the society and the feelings of depression are contagious.

    5. Re:1980 is clear if you understand history by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      I would also add that the biggest mass shootings and cases of murder in the world throughout human history resulted from collectivism one way or another. Wars and genocides, from early on and until today, all done under the ideas and ideology of ganging up together as a mob against somebody else.

      Every dictator uses collectivist ideas to murder people.

    6. Re:1980 is clear if you understand history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As has been every single advancement ever. No, your precious playing with bits doesn't change that it relies on a massive hardware industry. Oh, you are making up some new definition where it's only bad things. Way to not be the same destructive ideologue as the ones you decry.

    7. Re:1980 is clear if you understand history by mvdwege · · Score: 1

      Yes, roman_mir is that crazy. He also called the genocide on the Native Americans a 'win in the marketplace', just to underscore how crazy he is.

      If he says the sun comes up in the east, I'd take out a compass at sunrise to check.

      --
      "I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
    8. Re:1980 is clear if you understand history by TopherC · · Score: 1

      Yours is a fine theory but it needs some testing. There are a whole lot of factors that changed our culture in (roughly) 1980. The personal computer even. Many of those could be argued to be related to mass murders. But regardless of the arguments, the vast majority of these theories will be wrong. McAfee is putting forward a theory with a prediction: if anti-depressants are a cause (there need not be only one cause), one would expect the murderers to be using them. Is appears likely this is the case. This theory is still not completely believable, but it has something going for it and warrants further testing.

      This kind of social science reminds me of Freakonomics, correlating Roe v. Wade with decreased violent crime. Even this study can be (and has been) criticized, but it's interesting to read about the ways their theory is tested.

    9. Re:1980 is clear if you understand history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      roman_mir is not the first to say such things.

      The author of woodrow wilson: disciple of revolution says the same thing, more or less.

      Before the newspeak, before the Marxist Federal Reserve, this was common knowledge.

      Check item #5 of the communist manifesto, or Edward Mandell House's thoughts on the topic, or President Wilson's views, or Bakunin (Marx's opponent) if you dispute the idea of central bank sas being "Marxist") this was common knowledge.

      You can be an atheist, and still recognize:

      -- state communism and state socialism (distinguished from non-state variants) are not compatible with religions that believe in the concept of a soul, since collectivism is forever at odds with free will and free agency; if you disagree with this, check what israel or iran thinks/thought of communism and religion being compatible or not.

      -- central bank state socialism is the idea that "the government is god" (if you dispute this, try "Looking Backwards from 2000 to 1887 by Edward Bellamy, many state socialists are pretty open about this, it is not sophistry or inventiveness on my part to use such a phrase)

      To many people, including atheists and agnostics, it is clear to see the usurpation that has taken place.

      One a nation crosses over into collectivism, nevermind whether or not without religion that is a net gain or loss of morals, it is clear that:

      -- all individual lives become expendable, all that matters is "the group" (which is accomplished via "the state")

      It doesn't take a genius to follow this line of thought.

      Your sarcasm just shows your lack of understanding. It is crystal clear logic.

      Try Brave New World or 1984 as well.

      roman_mir is correct. Now, the idea that economics determines everything is very clearly a Marxist thought, but there is a bigger picture with roman_mir's argument.

      The bigger picture is, that state socialism can only occur with fractional or fully fiat currency. At least, so long as a nation has debt, and no surpluses or profits to enforce collectivism on people, it must borrow. I imagine collectivism due to "profit sharing" is possible, but haven't heard of any such nation ever existing.

      Irrespective of "moving off metal-based currency weakened the dollar, weakened the economy, leading to depression and violence" collectivism in and of itself, regardless of how well the economy is doing or not, makes everyone expendable and does not respect individuals.

      It just so happens that moving off of metal-backed currency was a step in that direction. Regardless of whether the economy was better or worse, even if it made everyone "richer" it was a step against respecting individual lives as having value in and of themself. It is a move towards "only the group matters, individuals are expendable"

      Roman_mir is wise.

    10. Re:1980 is clear if you understand history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Furthermore, if one is going to argue whether roman_mir is correct or not, why not study the history of central banking in europe, and see if it correlates with the overthrow of monarchies and the concept of separation of church and state or not?

      The French Revolution, which certainly had a "separate the church from state" factor in it, also had paper money, that eventually became worthless.

      While I don't think any U.S. citizen can say the founding fathers of the U.S. intended it to be a monarchy with "the church" closely tied to government, you can see that monetary policy is tied to religion which is tied to types of government.

      Usury is another story too, which central banks generally promote (not always -- the soviet union they couldn't get interest, and iceland apparently their central bank is "owned by the nation" and not "private"; the federal reserve i believe claims that profits go back to the gov., but i believe member banks (and all those downstream who they loan magic money to) can certainly get interest. Plus, even assuming the fed gives all "profit" from their monopoly position back to the gov., they certainly get "dividends" and those lucky people with connections profit from this at the expense of everyone else.)

      Roman_mir is correct in more ways than one. The proper way to attack his argument would be arguing whether that is a significant factor or not.

      Broadly speaking, Marxists and state socialists generally think economic policy determines EVERYTHING. So according to them, this influences morals, and hence number of shootings.

      There are as many kinds of socialists and marxists and communists as anything else, but broadly speaking, many do have a goal of destroying religion (or at least Christianity. Religion is not the same as morals, nor the lack thereof, but there is certainly overlap).

      You don't have to trust roman_mir.

      Read any genuine Christian writing before the Marxists infiltrated them (read about what communist china did to religions, including buddhists, if you doubt this).

      Read old religious writings on usury.

      Read Marxist writings about economics determining other facets of society and behavior.

      You don't have to take roman_mir's word for it. The people who advocate central banks say as much!

      Pick up a dollar bill and ask yourself what the "new order" is. This is freemason symbology, reason and enlightenment, and a breaking away from the new testament. Do you dispute this historical fact?

      How can you argue money is separate from morals, with not only that printed on the back of money, but "in god we trust" is there nowadays as well?

      There are vast amounts of evidence to lend credence to roman_mir's theory, going back CENTURIES.

    11. Re:1980 is clear if you understand history by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PvtVoid: Alan Greenspan I believe started out as a Randian, and strongly opposed central banks.

      More pertinent questions for roman_mir would be:

      - are you Alan Greenspan's child?
      - why did your dad turn to the dark side of Marxist central banking usury?

      Also, why are there masonic symbols and an anti-religious (i.e. pro reason) "new order" slogan written on u.s. currency?

      Why is "in god we trust" also written there, if money and morals have no correlation?

  18. Limit the FDA how? by ooshna · · Score: 1

    I'm curious as to how he wants to limit the FDA and to what ends.

    1. Re:Limit the FDA how? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm curious as to how he wants to limit the FDA and to what ends.

      According to https://mcafee16.com/issues/

      "The FDA has cost hundreds of thousands, if not millions of lives due to its overreaching policies of delay and over analysis. Promising drugs MUST be made available to the terminally ill, in spite of risks. What, after all, do the terminally Ill have to lose? Citizens wishing to experiment with research chemicals of any kind, providing they subject only themselves to experimentation, should be allowed to ingest or apply whatever they choose."

  19. Is he helping? by kamapuaa · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I have traveled extensively, and no traveler is hated more than the American traveler. We are arrogant and expect the entire world to speak our language

    McAffee is a creepy old sex tourist, using his money to sleep with women 40 years younger than him.

    --
    Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    1. Re:Is he helping? by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      McAffee is a creepy old sex tourist, using his money to sleep with women 40 years younger than him

      For the sake of argument, let's say that the above is true. Is he (A) at fault for not using his money the way you think he should... or are (B) the women [40 years younger at fault] somehow at fault for accepting said money... or (C) are you demonstrably a complete holier-than-thou loser? I can certainly tell you which option I'd put my my money on (though in another twenty years, I might rather just hand it to a woman 40 years younger than myself; you never know). ;)

    2. Re:Is he helping? by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      McAffee is ... using his money to sleep with women 40 years younger than him.

      What's wrong with that, other than your personal morals?

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    3. Re:Is he helping? by kamapuaa · · Score: 1

      Where did I say it was wrong? Why are you presuming your own moral values on what I said?

      --
      Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
    4. Re:Is he helping? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      McAffee is ... using his money to sleep with women 40 years younger than him.

      What's wrong with that, other than your personal morals?

      Forget morals, that is just a convenient excuse. For the most part it's jealousy. John McAfee spent a lot of time enjoying himself, the GP has not. Others enjoying life upsets insecure people, they expect everyone to be as miserable as they are.

      The excuses they use are inconsequential, if you say that Colombians are happy (well they are) they'll instantly bring up drug wars and Pablo Escobar because they cant accept that someone living a different life, richer or poorer, can be happier than them. They have to say something, anything to bring them down.

      I really couldn't care less about the number of prostitutes McAfee has been with. Personally I wish him well in his campaign but I think both me and John McAfee know his chances of election.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    5. Re:Is he helping? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Creepy implies a value judgement. Dontchathink?

    6. Re:Is he helping? by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      I have traveled extensively, and no traveler is hated more than the American traveler. We are arrogant and expect the entire world to speak our language

      McAffee is a creepy old sex tourist, using his money to sleep with women 40 years younger than him.

      "Someone, somewhere, is having fun" - you just broke my PuritanAlert detector.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    7. Re:Is he helping? by Tom · · Score: 1

      What you want to say is that he has 1st hand experience of the claim that he is making. And you know what? It is absolutely possible, even likely, that both of you are right.

      This seems to be forgotten in so many discussions - that the truth matrix has four fields. Both parties can be right, both parties can be wrong. Why we so often assume one is wrong and one is right?

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    8. Re:Is he helping? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think I'll post this AC. I am, currently, in a relationship with someone forty years my junior. It's awesome. Yes, she's legal. I'm just old.

  20. So in Short by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pardon All non violent Marijuana offenses, whether for possession or for sale.

    But don't make it illegal?

    Disband the TSA in its entirety.

    Private security with no oversight equals peeping your privates with no remedy.

    Place armed marshals on all flights.

    Kill the panicked and sick people!

    Disband the Bureau of Indian Affairs

    Finally we get to rob 'em hunting grounds for minerals!

    Radically restrict The FDA.

    Radically increase the number of food poisonings in the US. It's what's right for every bacterial colony.

    Direct the NSA and all other covert agencies that report to the Executive Branch to end all spying on American citizens and to place their efforts where our real threats lie

    Instead the effort is continued by the non-covert agencies and units of the government who do not report to the executive branch.

    It's hard to run for an office.

  21. John, I don't need you to answer MY question... by bobbied · · Score: 1

    Are you Crazy John?

    Yep! You are.

    --
    "File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
    1. Re:John, I don't need you to answer MY question... by Thud457 · · Score: 1

      Are you Crazy

      Judging by a lot of the other candidates, apparently that's a prerequisite for the job these days.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    2. Re:John, I don't need you to answer MY question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, sane has worked very well for the country. Sane people have done a bang-up job running things.

  22. "Disband the Bureau of Indian Affairs" by funwithBSD · · Score: 2

    Not sure you can, they are tied to the Treaties with the Tribes.

    Unless you are going to renegotiate those too.

    --
    Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    1. Re:"Disband the Bureau of Indian Affairs" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You understand that the entire arrangement is a huge sick joke, right? They're "sovereign nations" that are for the most part totally dependent on the Federal Govt. If they want to continue to live and own land communally, so be it, but the need to have a separate department for them is long over. You just as well have a Department for Amish Affairs if that's the case.

    2. Re:"Disband the Bureau of Indian Affairs" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure you can, they are tied to the Treaties with the Tribes.

      Unless you are going to renegotiate those too.

      Oh? Are the implementation details of the treaties baked into the treaties? Are there not other ways to implement an honoring of said treaties?

      And some of those treaties might be more favorably renegotiated for both parties' sake. Sometimes some bad ideas from before can be reevaluated in light of modernity, and better solutions found.

    3. Re:"Disband the Bureau of Indian Affairs" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't want to go look at those treaties. You owe a lot more than you think. Every single one - yes, every one, has been violated.

  23. Did you really tell a BBC correspondent...? by skam240 · · Score: 1

    Did you really tell a BBC correspondent that you had "the black vote" because you bave a black wife and the "Americans with tattoos vote" (one in five Americans, apperently) because you're the only candidtate with tatoos?

    Http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-34321191

    --
    I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  24. He's got my vote as long as he keeps his promises- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    of a hooker in every bedroom, and a bottle of Xanax in every medicine cabinet.

  25. hmmm by CaTfiSh · · Score: 1

    I like the carefully worded, "...nor slept with a legally underage woman.". Age of consent in Belize is 16 and that hardly qualifies one as a "woman". At least he's got the chops for the job.

    1. Re:hmmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also the age of consent in Canada, and large chunks of the western world - at least the parts that aren't extremely pearl-clutching about sexuality and patronizing about personal autonomy and youth.

  26. What country does he lives in? by danbob999 · · Score: 1

    We need armed guards at schools, churches, courthouses and every other place

    He must be living in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, or some other country with a civil war, isn't it? Otherwise why would he wants armed guard in school?

  27. All wrapped up in a nice little video... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    (On his Website, www.mcafee16.com, on the front page "McAfee’s Views")

    "This interview with RT does a good job of illustrating many of John McAfee’s views:"

    This video is no longer available because the YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated.

    ...Not a good starting indicator for someone who is "running the first purely electronic Presidential campaign".

  28. How'd you guess? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really? How about Hans Reiser while we're at it?

    Hans was going to be his vice presidential candidate.

    Talk about a bumper sticker....

    McAfee / Reiser - 2016
    "Killing the opposition!"

  29. McAfee channeling Bill Clinton: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "I have never raped, nor slept with a legally underage woman."

  30. Nope by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Pedophile scumbag.

  31. He'd get MY vote... apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See subject: I've said it before http://yro.slashdot.org/commen... & though he didn't answer MY question (on his stance on offshoring/outsourcing of jobs out of the USA or importing foreign workers instead via HB1 bs) -> http://interviews.slashdot.org... (which I was upmodded for, & NOT DOWNMODDED FOR ONCE OUT OF VIEW for those not browsing below the +1 moderation threshold default)?

    He's still the best I've heard from of all the potential candidates...

    APK

    P.S.=> We sure could use a REAL CHANGE FOR THE BETTER - perhaps he's the ticket to it... apk

  32. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  33. Some follow-up questions: by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

    1. Would you pardon Bradley Manning? Would you pardon Hillary Clinton?

    2. Would you expand on your statement/admission: “My first thought upon hearing Obama's proclamation was that I was in the middle of an acid flashback and I had no benzodiazepines to mediate the trip.”

    3. Your statement on abortion is evasive. Obviously, “A woman's body is her own” -- as is a man's, his own. The life growing inside her body, though, is not hers, it is its own life, and has its own soul. Your answer seems to indicate that you approve of killing helpless souls. Is that the case?

    --
    I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
  34. Senior illiterate moron by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    He flaunted US bankruptcy laws for personal gain

    As Marilyn Boop (or was it Betty Monroe) said, if you've got it, flout it.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  35. Driven, but no data. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Healthcare costs would be cut by 75% if medical malpractice lawsuits were outlawed or at least massively curtailed."

    No basis in fact. Just foolish rhetoric. And I am a guy who pays very large health insurance premiums. Employed in agriculture.

  36. Re: by Type44Q · · Score: 1

    My apologies: you make an entirely valid point. His stance on that one issue strikes me as utter bullshit. Sure, medical malpractice lawsuits have got to be completely frivolous at times... but nonetheless understandable considering the degree of incompetence that medical "practitioners" like to demonstrate routinely. I'd say the real problem is the fucking HMO's.

  37. Abortion by argee · · Score: 1

    The unborn child is the product of two people. To say a "woman's body is her own" evades the
    question. The issue here is two-fold: (1) Choice to have an abortion and (2) Choice to pay
    child support.

    A woman wants to have a child, but the man should be able to disagree, with the result that
    the woman can forego the child support and have the baby.

    My suggestion to women is: Don't sell yourself cheap. Get married first before you pop babies.
    You are then guaranteed child support. If you have an accident, then BOTH parties need to
    be involved in the decision to marry, child support, abortion, etc. If no agreement, then the
    parties can opt out.

    A "woman's body is her own" is correct. No one should force her to have a baby or get an
    abortion. The child support, or marriage, is elective.

  38. Suspicous Pre-denials by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

    About the two party system...

    I've never murdered anyone! I've never had sex with children! Who told you otherwise?

    Sheesh. I'm glad they didn't ask him to explain the infield fly rule. I don't think I'm cosmopolitan enough to handle his answer to that one.

    1. Re:Suspicous Pre-denials by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pre-denials? Can they really be considered as such when *every single person* that interviews him feels the need to bring it up? Isn't it just probability at this point.

      Personally I don't know why he bothers denying anything. We all no that everything the media reports is 100% accurate and based in fact, as well as published for pure motives. He should just accept the mark of the beast and move on...

  39. Well, those women are holeyer-than-thou looser! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, those women are holeyer-than-thou looser!

    That's what they get for having so much sex as a job. I mean, it really wears you out.

    Ironic homophonic captcha: diction

  40. Net Neutrality by spauldo · · Score: 1

    net neutrality
    McAfee: Any control whatsoever of the Internet is questionable if not actually insidious.

    He's worded that in an interesting way; you read it, and it sounds like whatever you want to hear.

    Considering his libertarian stance, I'd assume this means "let the companies do whatever they want," which is decidedly against net neutrality.

    --
    Those who can't do, teach. Those who can't teach either, do tech support.
  41. Re: by Pseudonym · · Score: 1

    I'm not American, but that sounds right to me. It would be in the insurer's best interests to incentivise preventative medicine (which probably could save a huge percentage of the US health bill), but for some reason they've decided that it's more lucrative not to pay for health care.

    --
    sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});