Some indexes are more fun than others. MonkeyDex is the first index of Internet stocks picked by a monkey. When it was created in January 1999, Raven, a 6-year-old female monkey, tossed darts at a dartboard plastered with the names of 133 Internet-related stocks. This year the board carried 281 company names.
Raven, who has her own Web site, showed up many of Wall Street's finest minds with a 213 percent gain for 1999. Had Raven been employed at a Wall Street mutual fund, her performance would rank her as the 22nd best money manager in the country, outperforming more than 6,000 Wall Street pros, according to the Internet Stock Review, creators of the MonkeyDex.
"It's all in the wrist action," Raven is reported to have said.
No. The only purpose of ham radio is broadcasting publicly. The broadcaster clearly intended for you to hear his transmission.
I think the best example would be open shades in a window. You could be walking by, seeing some people having wild sex and assume they are into voyeurism and sit down for a show. The police could come by, give you a hard time and you could say "Well I thought they wanted people to look! The shades are open!" and he'd likely let you off.
Then along comes Google. They send drones out to film every open window in the country at once. Could that be, in any way, construed as what the people who own those homes had intended? No. They're clearly violating the privacy of a large number of people.
carbon has nothing to do with the temperatures on earth
You're right. But this story is about carbon dioxide, not carbon. If it were all stored as carbon, we couldn't have a problem. Carbon dioxide, however, is the single biggest contributor to the temperature on earth there is. Also, I suspect you're just a troll:-)
First, I agree that the data should have been free. I even agree that the investigation into him seemed to be heavy handed.
However, Schwartz made an odd and poor choice in getting to the data. He could have downloaded the data from his own desk in his own office. Instead he went to the library and entered a wiring closet that was clearly not supposed to be open to the public. If he wanted to further his cause, this was a poor choice.
Most atrocities start with a seemingly simple mistake made by the victim. That doesn't justify ruining a mans life over what was essentially a pretty tame prank. I did worse than that... far worse... while I was in college and all I got was banned from the lab for a week. Of course, when I did it, downloading a file wasn't a federal crime yet.
Personally I'd like to visit Cuba but haven't, in part due to the illegality.
No. You can go there now yourself. Go talk to a travel agent. They fly you to Canada first, then off to Cuba where they don't stamp your passport. I've not been myself but I know at least a doze people who have made the trip. It's a very nice place to visit, and has been described as a lot like Jamaica but with less crime.
Seriously, come on. Do you PERSONALLY know ANYONE who was affected by this? Neither do I.
TFS and TFA should include something like: This news brought to you by our scaremongering overlords, courtesy of privacy nutjobs all over the globe.
This isn't legal documents we're talking about here, anyway. I'm also pretty sure this is covered under Facebook's EULA/TOS you didn't read.
Life goes on. Don't like Facebook, don't use Facebook.
I also don't personally know anyone that was killed in the Holocaust. I guess that's ok to then?
The point is, Facebook could very easily manipulate elections with this sort of thing. It should be illegal. I'm aware that lots of other companies have done the same sorts of things to lesser degrees, but that doesn't make it right. If it were illegal, at least the researchers involved might think twice about participating.
Netflix is already well aware of technologies that could make the net neutrality issue die overnight. But those methods would not be as profitable to them as just taking their video stream and shoving it up the ISPs collective asses which is what they are doing now. If in the future the courts somehow find against netflixes business model, I wouldn't be surprised if they rolled out a client within days that would fix the whole problem. Netflix is just as, if not more evil than the ISPs everyone keeps hating on.
Expensive hardware makes it hard to consume googles products. So they force the industry to lower the price by doing stuff like this. There's a lot not to love about googles spy empire, but there is at least some good that comes out of it. I've no doubt that I'll be using a cad program in VR and hand gestures in the near future thanks to Google.
Just hold a thumb against it. a Lot of us players do that to adjust the sound for different "expression"
Right... this seems like more of "A scientist that doesn't know anything about music explains something everyone who plays already knew" type of thing.
And they will most surely lose... It didn't overturn the cablevision decision.
That doesn't matter. If the SCOTUS leaves any ambiguity at all, industries will use it to file frivolous lawsuits against their competitors. They may even get idiotic rulings from lower courts if they get lucky and this will make its way back up to SCOTUS again.
Well, then perhaps the advertisers in their magazines should be aware that they are stealing from or attempting to steal from 2600 magazine. Sure it is a hacker magazine, but if they will steal from hackers, they will surely rip off the automotive enthusiasts.
2600 should file claims immediately both civil and criminal. Keeping about $100,000 is enough to get big agencies interested and it is certainly not legal to spin off the "bad" parts to a "bankrupt" entity merely to avoid paying the bills.
Should be fun to watch.
You're assuming bankruptcy law has anything to do with common sense. Back in the 90s I went and got a pager and paid for 1yr of service up front. The company literally went out of business the next day. I got to use the pager for about a week before it just died and there was no service, and no-where to call. I got ripped off.
2 or 3 years later I got a notice from a collections company. Another company had bought my pager providers "Assets" and claimed that I had never canceled my service, it auto renewed every year, and I owned them for 3 years of service. I'm the type that will spend $1000 to force you to give me the $100 you owe me, it's the principle in my mind. I immediately requested my money back for the entire service. I'll skip all of the details but after a year and a half I'd wasted a lot of money and the ruling was that this company had bought the "Assets" of the previous one, so they had no obligations to pay me back, but I didn't own on the auto-renewed service because there was no way for me to cancel since the company was out of buisness.
Even if 2600 had standing, and I have no idea, by the time they get this resolved they'll be bankrupt.
Also i should point out that I completely agree with you. I was arrested when I let the police search my car and they found a sandwich bag in which I kept a 'stash' of my medication in. I have grade 4 arthritis in my ankle and it can really get bad at times. I always tried (past tense) to keep a few in my car because I never wanted to get caught in the situation where I needed them and didn't have them. These were vicoden-ibuprofen, and I had a regular prescription for them. I ended up getting charged with posession and OUI. The posession was dropped when I came back and showed the prescription, the OUI was continued without a finding - but what they don't tell you is that you still have to go through the RMV's version of an OUI, which is not pleasant at all - especially seeing as I got one that I deserved some 22 years ago when I was about 21. So this one counted as my second, and required an "interlock device" be installed in my car for 2 years. I just can not describe to you how awful this device is. Food sets it off, and every time it goes off, you have to pay 50 bucks.
Right. You should always have your prescriptions in a bottle. The easiest way is to keep the paper prescription in your car and the bottle at home. If you ask for your pills to be split into 2 bottles at the pharmacy, they'll do that for you. Then you can keep one in the car. Don't consent to tests, don't answer questions, at all.
Police: "Where are you headed this evening" You: "Is this about that taillight? The Autozone guys replaced that. Do you think I can get my money back? You pay good money and they don't do what they say they're going to do. What's happening to this country? Sheesh!"
if they really press you "It's a secret! Just kidding, my lawyer says I'm not supposed to answer police questions when I'm getting pulled over. Something about the constitution or something. Can't you just ask the NSA?" and crack it like a joke.
etc...you don't want to give them a reason to irritate you more. So your best bet with regard to incriminating questions it just ignore them and ask your own questions instead or side track them with irrelevant information. The less you talk the better. Anything you say can and WILL be used against you.
Just like muscles, exorcizing your rights is a pain in the ass. Apathy is the governments best weapon. Imagine if everyone refused the search every time...;-) Do it for your kids man. Maybe some day we wont even get asked anymore.
"My lawyer has advised me that rights are like muscles. If they are not exercised, they become weak. Therefor I do not and cannot consent to this search."
It conveys, very directly: your refusal of the search request you are a constitution, and rights advocate... meaning you will a big headache for the cop if he continues you have a lawyer that's also into that sort of thing and would love to sue the department
You should refuse EVERY search. EVERY time. With absolutely no exceptions. The majority of arrests start with a consensual search by police of someone that legitimately thought they had nothing to hide. Everything is illegal. If a cop searches your home and he wants you to go to jail, you're going to jail. It's as simple as that.
People get into these situations where someone backs into their car in a parking lot and the cop that arrives casually asks "Mind if I check your car for open alcohol?" and they think "LOL that's funny! Of course I don't have that." But the cop isn't just looking for alcohol is he? He starts lifting your floor mats... does he think there's a beer bottle under there? In once instance a man bought a car from the local police impound. A few days later he got pulled over, consented to a search and low and behold the car had a secret compartment for smuggling drugs. They arrested him and he spent a month in jail before they finally realized it had the drugs when it went into impound. ALWAYS refuse search requests. ALWAYS.
Your argument sounds good, but any NH3 that is not converted to N2 and H2 gets converted to NOx (aka the brown stuff in smog) when it is combusted, just google fuel bound nitrogen (FBN)
The catalytic converter that came from the factory on the exhaust of the vehicle is already designed specifically to deal with NOx emissions. I should have mentioned that though. Didn't think of it!
your quote tag got screwed up there... I hate it when I do that. lol
anyways, you're right. But, you need to understand the Libertarian point of view. The market is impartial. It's not good, it's not bad, it just is. There's a tendency for other philosophies to talk about how to "improve" the market. You're trying to make it "Good" and by doing that you have to make it partial. From the libertarian point of view, as soon as you make it partial to good, you open the doors to the question "Well, what is good?"
Is feeding the poor good? Is creating jobs good? Is Propping up major banks good?
I guarantee your first knee jerk reaction to each of those questions is probably incorrect. They are much more difficult questions than they seem at first. This leads to a vacuum that makes it easy for people to abuse the system. "Let's feed the poor! The government can buy the food from me!" Is that good? Look at what the NGO's did to Haiti after the earthquake. They fed those in immediate need but destroyed the entire food distribution system in the country that had existed for decades, overnight. It will take decades more to rebuild the system.
If the market is impartial, by that, it is therefore not "bad" The second you decide it should be "good" you've created a huge, easily manipulated bureaucracy for others to exploit. Good and Bad are sadly easily confused with each other. But impartiality is easy to spot. THATS the point of a purely market driven economy.
(oh, and often I get replies to my Libertarian posts that say I'm wrong about this or that. There are lots of Libertarians out there, and lots of versions of Libertarianism. What I'm referring to is the classical form, that's pretty standard. If you search around I'm sure you can find other libertarians that disagree with me. That's the great thing about the philosophy, we let anyone talk! It's the one thing that if we didn't do, we wouldn't be libertarians anymore.)
yes, in my experience Dill keeps away small mammals.
What works better is a properly raise bed garden. Meaning you build walls above ground to contain the dirt. Then Put wire mesh at the bottom so they cant dig up through. Put down a layer of dirt. Fill it with your favorite mulch/soil. Viola. Make sure its about 2ft high or so, so the rabbits cant just climb up.
Second solution: A good pellet gun.
BEST solution (by far) a fenced in yard and a good dog.
Neat! I have a better Idea. If we had a sensor that we embedded in everyone's rectum that made regularly made API calls to a government database with a list of "banned substances" (think transfats, tobbaco, drugs, etc...) and would detonate on contact with those substances we should save tens of millions of lives!
Mr. Page, what you don't get is that, we are just as smart as you are. We understand the benefits. What you are missing is that the rest of us also, unlike you, understand the costs. You're a moron in this regard. We've weighed pros and cons and we've said "No" So please go away now.
Dear Government,
Thank you for informing us. I'm glad you're doing research and informing the public. That's your job. Now please go the hell away. You have an unfortunate tendency to find data like this and then use it to try and control my life. If I chose to drink despite this warning, that's my choice.
Not a libertarian, but to play devil's advocate for a moment: the problem is that they're a state-appointed-and-run agency, so this isn't properly privatised. You have the bad half of privatisation, but not the good half. You could argue that if the system was actually an open market with private security firms competing for the government's business then you'd have open-ness.
Now as far as I'm concerned, history has proven that it'd never actually work out that way, but there you go.
I am a Libertarian and your devils advocate argument is dead on. Good job:-)
Your concern about "history" is a valid one. But you need to look at a validly unregulated market to compare. We rarely, if ever, have those.
What's wrong with that? Libertarians should love this - government slashed to bare minimum (or below) and everything in private hands. And as we know, *everything* is better when privately operated. Next step should be deregulating LEC market to enable true competition.
You have absolutely no idea what libertarianism is about. It's about LIBERTY from both government and corporate interests... as well as fellow citizens. Shedding one master for another is stupid.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll just leave this here...
MonkeyDex
Some indexes are more fun than others. MonkeyDex is the first index of Internet stocks picked by a monkey. When it was created in January 1999, Raven, a 6-year-old female monkey, tossed darts at a dartboard plastered with the names of 133 Internet-related stocks. This year the board carried 281 company names.
Raven, who has her own Web site, showed up many of Wall Street's finest minds with a 213 percent gain for 1999. Had Raven been employed at a Wall Street mutual fund, her performance would rank her as the 22nd best money manager in the country, outperforming more than 6,000 Wall Street pros, according to the Internet Stock Review, creators of the MonkeyDex.
"It's all in the wrist action," Raven is reported to have said.
I suppose listening to ham radio now is a crime.
No. The only purpose of ham radio is broadcasting publicly. The broadcaster clearly intended for you to hear his transmission.
I think the best example would be open shades in a window. You could be walking by, seeing some people having wild sex and assume they are into voyeurism and sit down for a show. The police could come by, give you a hard time and you could say "Well I thought they wanted people to look! The shades are open!" and he'd likely let you off.
Then along comes Google. They send drones out to film every open window in the country at once. Could that be, in any way, construed as what the people who own those homes had intended? No. They're clearly violating the privacy of a large number of people.
His life was never ruined by the prosecutors. His life was ruined by his poor decision to kill himself.
You've obviously never been targeted by a federal prosecute before. Woe unto you should it ever happen.
Julian Assange is expected to make his London Fashion Week debut this September.
What begins as tragedy ends as farce.
At least you're talking about him. If the general consensus in this thread were "Assange who?" he'd already be getting waterboarded.
carbon has nothing to do with the temperatures on earth
You're right. But this story is about carbon dioxide, not carbon. If it were all stored as carbon, we couldn't have a problem. Carbon dioxide, however, is the single biggest contributor to the temperature on earth there is. Also, I suspect you're just a troll :-)
First, I agree that the data should have been free. I even agree that the investigation into him seemed to be heavy handed.
However, Schwartz made an odd and poor choice in getting to the data. He could have downloaded the data from his own desk in his own office. Instead he went to the library and entered a wiring closet that was clearly not supposed to be open to the public. If he wanted to further his cause, this was a poor choice.
Most atrocities start with a seemingly simple mistake made by the victim. That doesn't justify ruining a mans life over what was essentially a pretty tame prank. I did worse than that... far worse... while I was in college and all I got was banned from the lab for a week. Of course, when I did it, downloading a file wasn't a federal crime yet.
So what are the legal consequences for this?
Personally I'd like to visit Cuba but haven't, in part due to the illegality.
No. You can go there now yourself. Go talk to a travel agent. They fly you to Canada first, then off to Cuba where they don't stamp your passport. I've not been myself but I know at least a doze people who have made the trip. It's a very nice place to visit, and has been described as a lot like Jamaica but with less crime.
Seriously, come on. Do you PERSONALLY know ANYONE who was affected by this? Neither do I.
TFS and TFA should include something like: This news brought to you by our scaremongering overlords, courtesy of privacy nutjobs all over the globe.
This isn't legal documents we're talking about here, anyway. I'm also pretty sure this is covered under Facebook's EULA/TOS you didn't read.
Life goes on. Don't like Facebook, don't use Facebook.
I also don't personally know anyone that was killed in the Holocaust. I guess that's ok to then?
The point is, Facebook could very easily manipulate elections with this sort of thing. It should be illegal. I'm aware that lots of other companies have done the same sorts of things to lesser degrees, but that doesn't make it right. If it were illegal, at least the researchers involved might think twice about participating.
Netflix is already well aware of technologies that could make the net neutrality issue die overnight. But those methods would not be as profitable to them as just taking their video stream and shoving it up the ISPs collective asses which is what they are doing now. If in the future the courts somehow find against netflixes business model, I wouldn't be surprised if they rolled out a client within days that would fix the whole problem. Netflix is just as, if not more evil than the ISPs everyone keeps hating on.
Expensive hardware makes it hard to consume googles products. So they force the industry to lower the price by doing stuff like this. There's a lot not to love about googles spy empire, but there is at least some good that comes out of it. I've no doubt that I'll be using a cad program in VR and hand gestures in the near future thanks to Google.
Just hold a thumb against it. a Lot of us players do that to adjust the sound for different "expression"
Right... this seems like more of "A scientist that doesn't know anything about music explains something everyone who plays already knew" type of thing.
And they will most surely lose... It didn't overturn the cablevision decision.
That doesn't matter. If the SCOTUS leaves any ambiguity at all, industries will use it to file frivolous lawsuits against their competitors. They may even get idiotic rulings from lower courts if they get lucky and this will make its way back up to SCOTUS again.
Well, then perhaps the advertisers in their magazines should be aware that they are stealing from or attempting to steal from 2600 magazine. Sure it is a hacker magazine, but if they will steal from hackers, they will surely rip off the automotive enthusiasts.
2600 should file claims immediately both civil and criminal. Keeping about $100,000 is enough to get big agencies interested and it is certainly not legal to spin off the "bad" parts to a "bankrupt" entity merely to avoid paying the bills.
Should be fun to watch.
You're assuming bankruptcy law has anything to do with common sense. Back in the 90s I went and got a pager and paid for 1yr of service up front. The company literally went out of business the next day. I got to use the pager for about a week before it just died and there was no service, and no-where to call. I got ripped off.
2 or 3 years later I got a notice from a collections company. Another company had bought my pager providers "Assets" and claimed that I had never canceled my service, it auto renewed every year, and I owned them for 3 years of service. I'm the type that will spend $1000 to force you to give me the $100 you owe me, it's the principle in my mind. I immediately requested my money back for the entire service. I'll skip all of the details but after a year and a half I'd wasted a lot of money and the ruling was that this company had bought the "Assets" of the previous one, so they had no obligations to pay me back, but I didn't own on the auto-renewed service because there was no way for me to cancel since the company was out of buisness.
Even if 2600 had standing, and I have no idea, by the time they get this resolved they'll be bankrupt.
Fantastic. Way to go guys. Really, bravo.
Also i should point out that I completely agree with you. I was arrested when I let the police search my car and they found a sandwich bag in which I kept a 'stash' of my medication in. I have grade 4 arthritis in my ankle and it can really get bad at times. I always tried (past tense) to keep a few in my car because I never wanted to get caught in the situation where I needed them and didn't have them. These were vicoden-ibuprofen, and I had a regular prescription for them. I ended up getting charged with posession and OUI. The posession was dropped when I came back and showed the prescription, the OUI was continued without a finding - but what they don't tell you is that you still have to go through the RMV's version of an OUI, which is not pleasant at all - especially seeing as I got one that I deserved some 22 years ago when I was about 21. So this one counted as my second, and required an "interlock device" be installed in my car for 2 years. I just can not describe to you how awful this device is. Food sets it off, and every time it goes off, you have to pay 50 bucks.
Right. You should always have your prescriptions in a bottle. The easiest way is to keep the paper prescription in your car and the bottle at home. If you ask for your pills to be split into 2 bottles at the pharmacy, they'll do that for you. Then you can keep one in the car. Don't consent to tests, don't answer questions, at all.
Police: "Where are you headed this evening"
You: "Is this about that taillight? The Autozone guys replaced that. Do you think I can get my money back? You pay good money and they don't do what they say they're going to do. What's happening to this country? Sheesh!"
if they really press you "It's a secret! Just kidding, my lawyer says I'm not supposed to answer police questions when I'm getting pulled over. Something about the constitution or something. Can't you just ask the NSA?" and crack it like a joke.
etc...you don't want to give them a reason to irritate you more. So your best bet with regard to incriminating questions it just ignore them and ask your own questions instead or side track them with irrelevant information. The less you talk the better. Anything you say can and WILL be used against you.
"Ok, I can wait."
Just like muscles, exorcizing your rights is a pain in the ass. Apathy is the governments best weapon. ;-)
Imagine if everyone refused the search every time...
Do it for your kids man. Maybe some day we wont even get asked anymore.
This has worked very well for me in the past:
"My lawyer has advised me that rights are like muscles. If they are not exercised, they become weak. Therefor I do not and cannot consent to this search."
It conveys, very directly:
your refusal of the search request
you are a constitution, and rights advocate... meaning you will a big headache for the cop if he continues
you have a lawyer that's also into that sort of thing and would love to sue the department
You should refuse EVERY search. EVERY time. With absolutely no exceptions.
The majority of arrests start with a consensual search by police of someone that legitimately thought they had nothing to hide. Everything is illegal. If a cop searches your home and he wants you to go to jail, you're going to jail. It's as simple as that.
People get into these situations where someone backs into their car in a parking lot and the cop that arrives casually asks "Mind if I check your car for open alcohol?" and they think "LOL that's funny! Of course I don't have that." But the cop isn't just looking for alcohol is he? He starts lifting your floor mats... does he think there's a beer bottle under there? In once instance a man bought a car from the local police impound. A few days later he got pulled over, consented to a search and low and behold the car had a secret compartment for smuggling drugs. They arrested him and he spent a month in jail before they finally realized it had the drugs when it went into impound. ALWAYS refuse search requests. ALWAYS.
Your argument sounds good, but any NH3 that is not converted to N2 and H2 gets converted to NOx (aka the brown stuff in smog) when it is combusted, just google fuel bound nitrogen (FBN)
The catalytic converter that came from the factory on the exhaust of the vehicle is already designed specifically to deal with NOx emissions.
I should have mentioned that though. Didn't think of it!
your quote tag got screwed up there... I hate it when I do that. lol
anyways, you're right. But, you need to understand the Libertarian point of view. The market is impartial. It's not good, it's not bad, it just is. There's a tendency for other philosophies to talk about how to "improve" the market. You're trying to make it "Good" and by doing that you have to make it partial. From the libertarian point of view, as soon as you make it partial to good, you open the doors to the question "Well, what is good?"
Is feeding the poor good?
Is creating jobs good?
Is Propping up major banks good?
I guarantee your first knee jerk reaction to each of those questions is probably incorrect. They are much more difficult questions than they seem at first.
This leads to a vacuum that makes it easy for people to abuse the system. "Let's feed the poor! The government can buy the food from me!" Is that good? Look at what the NGO's did to Haiti after the earthquake. They fed those in immediate need but destroyed the entire food distribution system in the country that had existed for decades, overnight. It will take decades more to rebuild the system.
If the market is impartial, by that, it is therefore not "bad" The second you decide it should be "good" you've created a huge, easily manipulated bureaucracy for others to exploit. Good and Bad are sadly easily confused with each other. But impartiality is easy to spot. THATS the point of a purely market driven economy.
(oh, and often I get replies to my Libertarian posts that say I'm wrong about this or that. There are lots of Libertarians out there, and lots of versions of Libertarianism. What I'm referring to is the classical form, that's pretty standard. If you search around I'm sure you can find other libertarians that disagree with me. That's the great thing about the philosophy, we let anyone talk! It's the one thing that if we didn't do, we wouldn't be libertarians anymore.)
yes, in my experience Dill keeps away small mammals.
What works better is a properly raise bed garden. Meaning you build walls above ground to contain the dirt. Then Put wire mesh at the bottom so they cant dig up through. Put down a layer of dirt. Fill it with your favorite mulch/soil. Viola. Make sure its about 2ft high or so, so the rabbits cant just climb up.
Second solution: A good pellet gun.
BEST solution (by far) a fenced in yard and a good dog.
Neat! I have a better Idea. If we had a sensor that we embedded in everyone's rectum that made regularly made API calls to a government database with a list of "banned substances" (think transfats, tobbaco, drugs, etc...) and would detonate on contact with those substances we should save tens of millions of lives!
Mr. Page, what you don't get is that, we are just as smart as you are. We understand the benefits. What you are missing is that the rest of us also, unlike you, understand the costs. You're a moron in this regard. We've weighed pros and cons and we've said "No" So please go away now.
100% of preventable deaths are caused by poor decisions. We should outlaw decision making!
Dear Government,
Thank you for informing us. I'm glad you're doing research and informing the public. That's your job. Now please go the hell away. You have an unfortunate tendency to find data like this and then use it to try and control my life. If I chose to drink despite this warning, that's my choice.
Not a libertarian, but to play devil's advocate for a moment: the problem is that they're a state-appointed-and-run agency, so this isn't properly privatised. You have the bad half of privatisation, but not the good half. You could argue that if the system was actually an open market with private security firms competing for the government's business then you'd have open-ness.
Now as far as I'm concerned, history has proven that it'd never actually work out that way, but there you go.
I am a Libertarian and your devils advocate argument is dead on. Good job :-)
Your concern about "history" is a valid one. But you need to look at a validly unregulated market to compare. We rarely, if ever, have those.
What's wrong with that? Libertarians should love this - government slashed to bare minimum (or below) and everything in private hands. And as we know, *everything* is better when privately operated. Next step should be deregulating LEC market to enable true competition.
You have absolutely no idea what libertarianism is about. It's about LIBERTY from both government and corporate interests... as well as fellow citizens. Shedding one master for another is stupid.