I've got WfW 3.11 in a VM just for yucks. It has Win32s, the Microsoft TCP/IP stack, IE 5, and Calmira. Still crashes a lot, but you can get it on the Internet. Not that there are many websites anymore that won't crash IE5 just on principle.
No it's not. Arch is one of the least n00b-friendly distributions out there. I've had more success getting/Slackware/ running well than I have with Arch, and I'm a pretty experienced Linux guy.
Arch is OK if you're willing to do configuration for everything, but I've got a job and a family.
The point is that representative governments will enact that kind of law because a majority of the voters in that locality want it that way. The stores would continue to prosper by not allowing blacks to patronize them, because the majority like it that way.
This is not a place where the Holy Free Market can fix it; only government intervention from a higher level is going to fix it.
Since like so many you're ignorant of a bit of our political history, let me fill you in:
The Republicans used to be the liberal party, and the Democrats used to be the conservative, starting as the Republicans did just before the Civil War. This started changing around the time of the Great Depression and FDR and was finished in the '60s and '70s when the national Dems started to push for civil rights and the Dixiecrats (southern Dems) left the party for the Republicans because they wanted to keep Jim Crow around.
Mind the beam in your own eye before you care about the speck in mine.
Oh, come off it. You're really one of those tards who think Lincoln was a monster who destroyed States' Rights? The South did it to themselves by picking a fight they had no chance of winning.
The majority of the North's population (who, you may remember,/elected/ Lincoln) wanted the Union to be preserved.
I note that all but the last one were Republicans back when that was the liberal party.
I also note that the Wackypedia page shows the vast majority of the black congressweasels (they're all weasels, regardless of race) in the modern era were not Republicans.
I'm guilty of some rhetorical excess by saying they've suddenly discovered black men, but there's still a kernel of truth to it.
I seem to recall him saying that forcing e.g. lunch counters serve black people was wrong because it was anti-freedom, and that it should have been left up to the Holy Free Market (pbui) instead.
It's not liberty he's interested in, it's freedom from government.
Slashdot Mirror
I've got WfW 3.11 in a VM just for yucks. It has Win32s, the Microsoft TCP/IP stack, IE 5, and Calmira. Still crashes a lot, but you can get it on the Internet. Not that there are many websites anymore that won't crash IE5 just on principle.
Part of the problem is that our population continues to increase instead of gradually decreasing to a stable and sustainable point.
Oh yes, at least one bomb more powerful than that existed: the Tsar Bomba. Designed for 100 Mtons, detonated at 50 Mtons, and then cancelled.
It was the cleanest nuclear explosion ever, since over 90% of its power was generated by nuclear fusion.
Yeah, this. Slashdot's "journalism" isn't trustworthy.
As usual, the libertarian religion's answer is to blame government.
Absolutely wonderful.
What the parent said. If you switch into dev mode it's even got a Linux shell environment.
Bit limited as to being a "real" computer, but fantastic if you stick to using Internet-based services like Google Docs or Yahoo Mail.
Surprised nobody's mentioned how this could affect unscrupulous media outlets and court cases.
Right, "no true Scotsman".
No it's not. Arch is one of the least n00b-friendly distributions out there. I've had more success getting /Slackware/ running well than I have with Arch, and I'm a pretty experienced Linux guy.
Arch is OK if you're willing to do configuration for everything, but I've got a job and a family.
However, the organization is intended as such.
Probably never - when the sea levels rise in a few decades, they'll still deny that man had anything to do with it.
Grass is always greener on the other side of the fence; trouble is it's often greener because of all the bullshit.
There's a reason why our ancestors enacted the 17th amendment, people.
Human nature /does/ make it FAPP impossible. It's the exact same goddamn problem that libertarianism has: "if only people would".
The point is that representative governments will enact that kind of law because a majority of the voters in that locality want it that way. The stores would continue to prosper by not allowing blacks to patronize them, because the majority like it that way.
This is not a place where the Holy Free Market can fix it; only government intervention from a higher level is going to fix it.
...who happen to give major "campaign donations" to certain congressweasels.
Since like so many you're ignorant of a bit of our political history, let me fill you in:
The Republicans used to be the liberal party, and the Democrats used to be the conservative, starting as the Republicans did just before the Civil War. This started changing around the time of the Great Depression and FDR and was finished in the '60s and '70s when the national Dems started to push for civil rights and the Dixiecrats (southern Dems) left the party for the Republicans because they wanted to keep Jim Crow around.
Mind the beam in your own eye before you care about the speck in mine.
Jim Crow laws were in place because the majority of southerners wanted it that way.
Congratulations, you've just given me a reason why States' Rights fails and we sometimes need the federal government to protect minorities.
You're giving me "if only" and ideology; typical libertarian. I don't buy it.
Oh, come off it. You're really one of those tards who think Lincoln was a monster who destroyed States' Rights? The South did it to themselves by picking a fight they had no chance of winning.
The majority of the North's population (who, you may remember, /elected/ Lincoln) wanted the Union to be preserved.
In Alabama in the '60s? I think the business would have done just fine. Which is the problem that government intervention fixed, as society demanded.
You're yet another wonderful example of libertarians who just don't get how the real world works.
I note that all but the last one were Republicans back when that was the liberal party.
I also note that the Wackypedia page shows the vast majority of the black congressweasels (they're all weasels, regardless of race) in the modern era were not Republicans.
I'm guilty of some rhetorical excess by saying they've suddenly discovered black men, but there's still a kernel of truth to it.
He sounds like Romney - repeal the health care act and increase the size of the military.
Fuck that.
Imma guess you've got enough money socked away to pay for medical care and such.
I seem to recall him saying that forcing e.g. lunch counters serve black people was wrong because it was anti-freedom, and that it should have been left up to the Holy Free Market (pbui) instead.
It's not liberty he's interested in, it's freedom from government.