It should only scare libertarians that don't understand libertarianism.
Libertarianism as expressed by John Galt leads to anarchy, like in the earhly paradises of Haiti and Somalia.
Libertarianism sprinkled with a dose of reality is liberalism (laissez faire) in the true sense of the world.
True liberalism tries in as much as possible to get the state out of the way as much as possible, but keep it firmly in place where it belongs: (1) education, (2) services best provided as compulsory insurance (defense, policing, fire department, infrastructure, health, unemployment insurance, retirement pools) and (3) overall regulation of economic activity to prevent abuses.
You are not refuting anything I wrote. You are grasping at straws after someone set a very specific mark and your side failed it. So you go around digging for excuses to save your side, rather than admitting that if that's the mark for totalitarianism then Bush Jr. takes the prize.
Having some ground rules is not the same as totalitarian. Of course it is possible to have an overregulated society which on the whole becomes totalitarian but we are not there yet.
Like how liberals are for bigger government?
Excuse me? government was smaller at the end of each of the last last three Democratic presidencies (Carter, Clinton, Obama) as % of GDP as compared to where it began while it has grown during the last three Republican presidencies (Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush Jr.).
This canard of "democrats=bigger government" stopped being true 40 years ago, but people have yet to notice that the GOP is today, without a doubt, the party of big government and deficit spending.
The only time the GOP is in favor of cutting spending is when it benefits the poor, but overall the GOP loves deficits. Clinton left a surplus and Bush Jr. first act of office was to fritter away that surplus, rather than applying it the fiscally responsible way towards paying down the federal debt, like Clinton did.
Nope, the Democrats while in power (Carter, Clinton, Obama) have done nothing of the authoritarian stripe. The closest we've come are right-wing inspired religious conservative laws (anti-drug laws, anti-abortion laws, anti-gay laws) and rather prominently "anti-terror" laws passed during the Bush administration, and I place "anti-terror" laws in scary quotes since their value in terror prevention is rather doubtful e.g. TSA.
This is before we get to vote-prevention laws being passed in republican states to prevent democrats from voting. How's that for totalitarian.
Keep in mind that liberal means freedom. The liberal left which is the flavor we have in the good ol' USA (no marxists here) has traditionally been on the side of more freedom, while the right has traditionally been against it.
There are exceptions, but people on the right who like freedom are called libertarians and they are generally not welcome in the GOP which is driven by totalitarian social conservatives and pro-industry members of congress who love nothing more than providing subsidies and protections to monopolies.
1) go around gratuitously insulting people 2) fail to recognize other people's contributions 3) have an aggrandized view of themselves 4) have a confrontational attitude to most things 5) do not beat about the bush when they disagree with something
If is perfectly possible to do #5) without doing 1-4. That's the difference between a programmer who is a bit blunt in the service of the truth and an asshole.
Yeah because the best places in the world are those with small governments like Haiti and Somalia, while the worst places in the world are those with large governments such as Germany, Sweden and Canada.
If you're old enough to remember Regan he didn't have much to run on
I'm as ant-Reagan as they come, but I'm sorry, his two terms as governor of California look positively scholarly compared to the lack of experience from Fiorina.
almost on the California Gubernatorial race until an epic legendary gaff during a debate cost her the election.
Coulda woulda shoulda. But I seriously doubt this is true since she never ran for Governor.
You are correct, at least as far as the Supreme Court of Canada and Superior Court of Ontario are concerned. They have ruled time and time again that overreaching non-compete agreements sign away unalienable rights and are thus invalid.
Noncompetes which are limited in scope on the other hand are routinely upheld.
There is no real penalty for not listening to users and just doing what you want.
This. In my experience of many decades using software program flaws, be them bugs or UI issues are longer lived in open source software than in commercial software. In commercial software either you fix it or your competition will.
In open source software the standard answer is: "the source code is there, fix it yourself!" which is as realistic as telling passengers on a falling plane that they are welcome to try to fix the problem.
Dude, we all know (even the GP) that straight out projections of exponential functions are wrong. However the fact that in just 20 years either one gets us there (as opposed to say 200 years for both combined) means that the error of tracking the exponential curve is much smaller than one would have expected from a straight out mindless exponential projection.
Solar is on a Moore's law curve and has the same principles behind it, so we could well see a 100x increase in PV production over the next 10 years.
Huge markets for both high and low temperature bulbs not going away anytime soon. LED changes nothing.
Huh? for most of the last 100 years we pretty much had a single temperature choice: yellow incandescent. A bit more recently we had halogen (relatively successful) and CFLs (not really). What is this huge temperature market you talk about?
Slashdot Mirror
Many posed for x-ray pictures near an obelisk marking the exact location where the bomb went off
, the president has nothing to do with the budget,
This pearl stands all on its own. There's nothing one needs to add to it.
It should only scare libertarians that don't understand libertarianism.
Libertarianism as expressed by John Galt leads to anarchy, like in the earhly paradises of Haiti and Somalia.
Libertarianism sprinkled with a dose of reality is liberalism (laissez faire) in the true sense of the world.
True liberalism tries in as much as possible to get the state out of the way as much as possible, but keep it firmly in place where it belongs: (1) education, (2) services best provided as compulsory insurance (defense, policing, fire department, infrastructure, health, unemployment insurance, retirement pools) and (3) overall regulation of economic activity to prevent abuses.
You are not refuting anything I wrote. You are grasping at straws after someone set a very specific mark and your side failed it. So you go around digging for excuses to save your side, rather than admitting that if that's the mark for totalitarianism then Bush Jr. takes the prize.
When you are in a hole the first step is to stop digging.
Except no other country does this. What other country fines, or taxes you as a penalty for not buying health insurance?
Except the many that do, like Canada, Germany and Switzerland.
Funny how that never comes up when republicans are gushing about Reaganomics all of which took place under a democrat controlled congress.
Again, you find that the data doesn't match your preconceptions and all you do is search for excuses to try to make it go away.
He set the bar for totalitarianism, Bush Jr. was the one who failed.
Everything else is after the fact rationalizations because you didn't like the outcome.
It's called tax and it is a practice universally applied in all first world countries, so no, it is most definitely not authoritarian.
You can measure how authoritarian a government is by the % of GDP they spend/waste.
You make an excellent point. Let's do that shall we? The winner is Bush Jr. with a $1.7 trillion war against Iraq which had nothing to do with 9/11.
Thanks for pointing that out.
Having some ground rules is not the same as totalitarian. Of course it is possible to have an overregulated society which on the whole becomes totalitarian but we are not there yet.
Like how liberals are for bigger government?
Excuse me? government was smaller at the end of each of the last last three Democratic presidencies (Carter, Clinton, Obama) as % of GDP as compared to where it began while it has grown during the last three Republican presidencies (Reagan, Bush Sr., Bush Jr.).
This canard of "democrats=bigger government" stopped being true 40 years ago, but people have yet to notice that the GOP is today, without a doubt, the party of big government and deficit spending.
The only time the GOP is in favor of cutting spending is when it benefits the poor, but overall the GOP loves deficits. Clinton left a surplus and Bush Jr. first act of office was to fritter away that surplus, rather than applying it the fiscally responsible way towards paying down the federal debt, like Clinton did.
Nope, the Democrats while in power (Carter, Clinton, Obama) have done nothing of the authoritarian stripe. The closest we've come are right-wing inspired religious conservative laws (anti-drug laws, anti-abortion laws, anti-gay laws) and rather prominently "anti-terror" laws passed during the Bush administration, and I place "anti-terror" laws in scary quotes since their value in terror prevention is rather doubtful e.g. TSA.
This is before we get to vote-prevention laws being passed in republican states to prevent democrats from voting. How's that for totalitarian.
Keep in mind that liberal means freedom. The liberal left which is the flavor we have in the good ol' USA (no marxists here) has traditionally been on the side of more freedom, while the right has traditionally been against it.
There are exceptions, but people on the right who like freedom are called libertarians and they are generally not welcome in the GOP which is driven by totalitarian social conservatives and pro-industry members of congress who love nothing more than providing subsidies and protections to monopolies.
Let's review what assholes do:
1) go around gratuitously insulting people
2) fail to recognize other people's contributions
3) have an aggrandized view of themselves
4) have a confrontational attitude to most things
5) do not beat about the bush when they disagree with something
If is perfectly possible to do #5) without doing 1-4. That's the difference between a programmer who is a bit blunt in the service of the truth and an asshole.
The USA in general has more forest now then it did 100 years ago.
Not quite:
Forest area has been relatively stable since 1907-- US Department of Agriculture.
It has 300 million hectares of forest plus/minus 6m over the last 100 years.
This study may only be referenced by Liberals when promoting new ways to take from those who produce.
You mean the workers on the production lines? because those are the only ones who do any producing.
Rich people allocate capital and if they do it well this is a Good Thing (TM), but certainly on and itself does not produce anything.
Yeah because the best places in the world are those with small governments like Haiti and Somalia, while the worst places in the world are those with large governments such as Germany, Sweden and Canada.
If you're old enough to remember Regan he didn't have much to run on
I'm as ant-Reagan as they come, but I'm sorry, his two terms as governor of California look positively scholarly compared to the lack of experience from Fiorina.
almost on the California Gubernatorial race until an epic legendary gaff during a debate cost her the election.
Coulda woulda shoulda. But I seriously doubt this is true since she never ran for Governor.
Yes, it is actually slavery.
You are correct, at least as far as the Supreme Court of Canada and Superior Court of Ontario are concerned. They have ruled time and time again that overreaching non-compete agreements sign away unalienable rights and are thus invalid.
Noncompetes which are limited in scope on the other hand are routinely upheld.
IANAL; ASDA
This explains republicans....
(ducks)
This is Europe. No one here works in the Summer.
Sure their debt is nearly twice ours and their unemployment rate is four times ours, but we have a black president. So surely he's worse.
Weird because I can't name Einstein's professor. Or Newton's.
Isaac Barrow. Now where do I collect my geek medal?
There is no real penalty for not listening to users and just doing what you want.
This. In my experience of many decades using software program flaws, be them bugs or UI issues are longer lived in open source software than in commercial software. In commercial software either you fix it or your competition will.
In open source software the standard answer is: "the source code is there, fix it yourself!" which is as realistic as telling passengers on a falling plane that they are welcome to try to fix the problem.
Dude, we all know (even the GP) that straight out projections of exponential functions are wrong. However the fact that in just 20 years either one gets us there (as opposed to say 200 years for both combined) means that the error of tracking the exponential curve is much smaller than one would have expected from a straight out mindless exponential projection.
Solar is on a Moore's law curve and has the same principles behind it, so we could well see a 100x increase in PV production over the next 10 years.
Huge markets for both high and low temperature bulbs not going away anytime soon. LED changes nothing.
Huh? for most of the last 100 years we pretty much had a single temperature choice: yellow incandescent. A bit more recently we had halogen (relatively successful) and CFLs (not really). What is this huge temperature market you talk about?