What exactly is wrong with allowing market forces to take care of your enemies? If he doesn't like McDonald's, and can convince his friends, family, and neighbors to not eat there, then McDonald's will not stay very long. If the restaurant becomes unprofitable, then the corporate office will close it, or the franchisee will lose money, and will look for ways to get rid of the franchise. Since this hasn't happened, then we can only assume that enough people are eating at the store to maintain it. This seems to me to be the purest form of democracy possible. Certainly, those that are opposing the restaurant are more vocal, but if they are not numerous enough to stop the store from profitting, then they cannot win. Mr. Katz, you seem to have missed the one thing that you could have honored Mr. Bove for: free trade. But, that point presents an obvious hypocracy. Mr. Bove, as stated in your article, protested against U.S. duties on cheese. There, he is fighting for a world dominated by free trade, which is the best for all. However, we later see that Mr. Bove is one of the many who support selective free trade, in which everyone wants their native products to be protected with tariffs, but protests when their exports are subjected to similar tariffs. Another point you seem to miss is that small farmers are _not_ automatically heros. At this point in time, with this many people on the planet, small farmers cannot continue. They simply cannot produce food as efficiently as a larger farmer can. This appears to me as a benefit for the larger producer. Why should prices for food be artificially inflated to protect the interests of a small number of people? This clearly works against the principles of capitalism as well, as it denies an informed consumer the choice to either the lower priced industrially produced food, or the higher priced food produced by small farmer. Finally, I've decided that I must now vote my mind on the subject, and set my user profile to no longer show stories by you. I doubt that slashdot monitors this, so there are no market forces for you to fear.
Slashdot Mirror
Iron Butterfly did In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida. Deep Purple did Smoke on the Water.
Nice try, though.
So then, it's safe to say you don't read bash.org?
They've already made this.
It's called "Hey You Pikachu".
Here's the results of running `style` on my spam corpus:
readability grades:
Kincaid: 12.6
ARI: 18.3
Coleman-Liau: 11.0
Flesch Index: 69.8
Fog Index: 16.0
Lix: 56.9 = school year 11
SMOG-Grading: 9.1
Looks like the spammers are smarter than both Mac users and PC users.
Just edit your .procmailrc:
:0
/dev/null
And all your problems are solved.
What exactly is wrong with allowing market forces to take care of your enemies? If he doesn't like McDonald's, and can convince his friends, family, and neighbors to not eat there, then McDonald's will not stay very long. If the restaurant becomes unprofitable, then the corporate office will close it, or the franchisee will lose money, and will look for ways to get rid of the franchise. Since this hasn't happened, then we can only assume that enough people are eating at the store to maintain it. This seems to me to be the purest form of democracy possible. Certainly, those that are opposing the restaurant are more vocal, but if they are not numerous enough to stop the store from profitting, then they cannot win.
Mr. Katz, you seem to have missed the one thing that you could have honored Mr. Bove for: free trade. But, that point presents an obvious hypocracy. Mr. Bove, as stated in your article, protested against U.S. duties on cheese. There, he is fighting for a world dominated by free trade, which is the best for all. However, we later see that Mr. Bove is one of the many who support selective free trade, in which everyone wants their native products to be protected with tariffs, but protests when their exports are subjected to similar tariffs.
Another point you seem to miss is that small farmers are _not_ automatically heros. At this point in time, with this many people on the planet, small farmers cannot continue. They simply cannot produce food as efficiently as a larger farmer can. This appears to me as a benefit for the larger producer. Why should prices for food be artificially inflated to protect the interests of a small number of people? This clearly works against the principles of capitalism as well, as it denies an informed consumer the choice to either the lower priced industrially produced food, or the higher priced food produced by small farmer.
Finally, I've decided that I must now vote my mind on the subject, and set my user profile to no longer show stories by you. I doubt that slashdot monitors this, so there are no market forces for you to fear.
Entropy is a good pointer. It increases as time moves forward. Were time to move backward, the entropy of a system would tend to decrease.