i think the obsession comes from free hardware. i could care less about cues or whatever, but i will enjoy cataloging my books and cds.
wish ---
Re:Libertarianism the new Republicism bur more evi
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 2
Not less government, but the kind of government that serves only business' interests and not the public's interests, which I felt the previous
poster was in favor of.
No, I am in favor of government that does not tell me how to live my life, as long as I don't infringe on another's right to life or property.
How could it happen? It's already happened in the United States. Large corporations lobby the government to extend the period of time an
artist's work is copyrighted. (A power of the government explicitly stated in the constitution.) As a result, despite there being no benefit to the
person who actually created the work, I have to pay for the right to have a copy of a song written by someone who has been dead for years.
They are able to accomplish this precisely because the government is too big, and too powerful. If the government would stay out of the free market, then corporations wouldn't be able to make laws with lobbyists and money. The government has no place interfering, and trying to babysit the economy.
Intellectual property is a sticky topic, and one on which the constitution doesn't have much to say. It would be best to rethink intellectual property and ammend the constitution - so that the government can adequately protect your right to property.
Since you're determined to talk about music, here's my take on it: There is a difference between the words to a song and a recording of a performance of that song. Once someone is dead, there is little point to granting him exclusive rights to sing a song he wrote - but, in my opinion, the recordings of his performances should remain his property, to be willed to his descendants. You must also consider that, in the performance of a song, there are many other people involved. From the engineers to the producer to the mixing engineer to the mastering engineer, all these people have "performed" with the artist to make the recording you are listening to.
Re:Libertarianism the new Republicism bur more evi
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 2
Why is federally funded science bad for capitalism?
How do low interest federal college loans hurt capitalism?
If I am in the business of doing scientific research, it is hard for me to compete with someone who gets money from the federal government to do their research.
If I am in the business of loaning money, I lose business on the loans that the federal government provides.
Most federal social programs are bad for capitalism. For instance, Bush wants to spend a few billion dollars building government-sponsored internet huts, where anyone can come to get internet access. His reasoning is that there are many who cannot afford computers, and so they are getting locked out of all the technical innovations. I agree with him that it would be nice if everyone had access to the new technology, but government is the wrong way to do it. Capitalism will work it out. You see, there is a guy in california that put some internet connected computers in his laundramat, and customers can surf while they wash. I bet he's raking it in. I can tell you this guy isn't voting for Bush. Also, the people trying to develop low-cost internet boxes - the people targeting their products for this demographic - would now have to compete with this government program, which they would be paying for.
I know we're not talking Bush here, but I thought that was a good illustration of how government social programs harm capitalism - they make people fund things that compete with their own business ideas. Not too nice.
As far as the corporations go, it is a cycle. Say there is no government check on Microsoft. It grows big and powerful, becomes a big nasty monopoly. It squashes the competition. All of a sudden, there is no reason for it to be innovative (if it ever was:), and it gets fat and lazy. Then, out of nowhere, comes someone who is not fat and lazy, with a better product, and upsets MS's control. That is how capitalism works. Maybe it's a bit slower than the government charging in and busting things up, but it's better because it's powered by the people, innovation, and capitalism.
The record industry is already seeing some upset. It got big, fat, and lazy, and all it will take is someone to figure out how to really succeed with digital music (mp3.com, maybe, if they'd stop with this my.mp3 thing) to upset it and change things for good. The record industry as we know it will crumple when someone comes up with a system that pleases the consumer and feeds the artist.
Re:Libertarianism the new Republicism bur more evi
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 2
On welfare:
"The only sensible solution is to end it -- immediately and completely."
"If I have my way, your federal welfare payments will end in eight months."
This sounds like turning people out on the street to me.
That is correct. The government should never have started babysiting these people, and it's time to stop. What should these people do? Seek help from churches, charities, and communities. These entities are better suited to meeting their individual needs and getting them back on their feet.
As for Social Security, Browne's plan is to continue paying Social Security to those already dependant on it. He will do this out of a privately (not government) managed fund filled with money saved from the trimming of excess government. Everyone is better off if we end Social Security. Refer to the study I linked to in my last post.
On Selling off the Environment:
"I want to pay off the federal debt by auctioning off the assets the government shouldn't own -- western lands, power companies, unused
military bases, and commodity reserves."
I am assuming this includes National Forest lands, BLM lands, perhapes even National Wilderness Areas. This is almost as bad as Bush
wanting to drill in the ANWR. Selling these lands in auction essentially to the highest corporate bidder could possibly close many of them to
public use.
Yes. Individuals are better suited to care for those lands than the government. Been to a national forest recently? They're filthy. Besides, no one said that your community can't, as a community, purchase a large chunk of forest for your use.. Or your state, for that matter. But the federal government has no business doing it. (It is unconstitutional). Besides, private land management can provide better care for the land.
On closing down federal programs:
"The federal government has no authority to be involved in any way in education, health care, welfare, law enforcement, the retirement
business, or anything else the Constitution hasn't specified."
Say goodbye to federal loans for education, research grants for science, national forests and parks, etc. Say hello to corporate control of
the environment, massive unchecked monopolies, and an increase in federal crime becuase without federal law enforcement, who will
enforce the laws of the US constitiution?
Federally funded science is bad for capitalism. Federal college loans hurt capitalism also. If there is a market for low-interest educational loans, someone will step up and provide them. But no one can compete with the federal government. Look at the increasing privatization of telecommunications - never before has it been so cheap, or you had so many options to communicate. Federal interferance in all these things hurts capitalism.
The idea of "unchecked corporations" is stupid. Who keeps them in check? The consumers. It's very simple.
without federal law enforcement, who will
enforce the laws of the US constitiution?
What "laws of the US constitution?" Last I checked, the constitution was a description of government and a bill of rights for the citizens. By the way, most of the federal government today is unconstitutional, so someone is not doing a very good job of "enforcing the constitution."
Re:Libertarianism the new Republicism bur more evi
on
Should You Vote?
·
· Score: 3
I can't see how Browne's brand of libertarianism has anything to do freedom, considering he's completely right-wing except for his stance on drugs and will not defend women's reproductive rights and will cut federal funding to hospitals and abortion clinics.
Browne has everything to do with freedom. Browne wants to get the government out of your life, in all aspects. He is completely right-wing. He is the most right-wing candidate out there. His stance on drugs is right-wing: "Get the government out of it. Quit spending your tax dollars fighting a war that puts hundreds of thousands of nonviolent people in jail." His stance on abortion is right-wing: "The government has no place to make these decisions - get it out of the way." Should the government fund hospitals and clinics? No! Let private industry compete to offer you the best hospital or clinic. Let you choose which one to go to.
He is also planning on cutting social security calling it a big mess when in reality the administration costs of running it are a fraction of private insurance companies pay. Social Security also pays out worker's comp and disibility. Where will these people go?
Social Security is a big mess. Why don't you read this study (take time to read the whole thing) and think about what it would mean for you to take all your social security taxes and invest them yourself, and make, say, 18% returns on your investment. Then, if you die at 66, guess what? Your family can inherit your savings. Under Social Security, you can work all your life, "saving" hundreds of thousands of dollars with the government, die at 66, and your wife and kids not see a penny. That's a bad investment, my friend. Read that link above. You'll be surprised at the numbers.
Furthermore, Browne is not going to dump people out on the street. If you're dependant on Social Security, you'll continue to get it until you die. Browne is not going to crap on these people - he's got a plan to take care of them.
Browne is great if you're already wealthy or on your way there and aren't living on the wrong side of the tracks or on hard times and simply don't care about the working poor. Its like Forbes and his flat tax, a scam to keep rich people from paying taxes.
Browne is great if you believe you can manage your life better than the government. If you prefer the government to be your nanny, protecting you from bad decisions and responsibility, vote for anyone else.
Browne is about people having freedom and taking responsibility for thier actions. And, by the way, if you read that article I linked to above, cutting things like Social Security will help the poor get richer.
Why don't you go read through Harry Browne's website. Read up on his ideas and his plans for implementing them before you spout off about things you aren't sure about.
I disagree. How many times do you see someone standing in public, holding their cell-phone in one hand, with a finger in their other ear
so they can hear.
Why is this so different?
because everyone knows they're on a cell phone and cell phones are "cool."
A method for organizing the applications on a computer into a single menu tree accessible from the "main" screen of a graphical operating system when the user clicks on a designated graphic.
I never saw a phrack past issue 47, and that was five or six years ago.. I did see mention of them the other day, and some quote from issue 49, which means they must have gotten over whatever problems plagued them after 47. I never knew they had a website.. We used to get it off BBSs.. hehe.. Vote for freedom!
---
All this will do is knock down mail servers (you just know some
jerk is gonna write a script and spam the hell out of them).
Well, that's not the way they're doing it. You type in a form and it finds the e-mail addresses for your local Reps and Senators for your state, and that's who it e-mails. It doesn't even tell you the addresses, although you could find them for yourself by searching the net.
You see, all the e-mail isn't going to the same place.
And, sure, someone could write a script to spam everyone in washington. So what. This campaign targets the congressment that represent each individual e-mailer. So my rep only gets e-mail from people in the dallas area, etc.
There is a small market for minidisc, however, outside of the consumer-music mainstream. MD-DATA has made an inroad in the project studio market, with several products (Yamaha in particular) designed for multitrack recording on the MD-DATA.
Tapers have also shown interest in minidisc, mainly because of it's small size and inexpense compared to DAT. If you're doing stealth taping (because the band doesn't allow it) minidisc is a good medium for you.*
Now there's fierce competition in the home recording market, with Zip drive recording, hard disk recording, "budget" ADATs and DA-38s.. I think fostex even makes a machine with a SCSI port, so you can use Zip, Jazz, SCSI HD, or whatever you want. It will be interesting to see if minidisc survives in this market. (I hope it does, because I own a Yamaha MD8).:)
I agree that minidisc is probably a lost cause for retail music, but Sony has found some interesting ways to keep it alive. Their new MP3 player also plays ATRAC, and the software that comes with it rips to ATRAC, not MP3.
The main reason for my post was the disagreement with the statement "it will die in 5 years or less, I predict"
I think it was the "I predict" that really got to me.:)
later- wish
* I do not endorse the taping of bands who do not permit it. I believe that bands would gain from permitting it, but if they don't I respect that. Vote for freedom!
---
1) its not compatible with standard cd players. you need a special player. you also do with mp3, but if you're preaching recordable media then cdr has it all over minidisc. and the cdr blanks are ultra cheap these days and can be found anywhere.
The CD-R is not re-recordable. MD is.
You can't fit a CD-R in your pocket to tape shows. Ever seen a pocket-sized CD-R with a mic and a portable power supply? me niether. If you're going to bring a deck, you might as well bring DAT.
3) the minidisc format never really caught on here in the US. it will die in 5 yrs or less, I predict.
You predict? Well, that's nice. Do you have any evidence, or are you just a seer?
i'm assuming that's pronounced "eye-bib-lee-o" and not "ib-ib-lee-o" or "ibby-blee-o" or "i-buy-bly-o" or somethign else.. the word just looks mangled..
the most useful thing to do with this technology would be speech-to-text. but then again, if the technology is that good, why don't i have it on my desktop?
now text-to-speech synthesis would be alot of fun.
"I am a Palm IIIxe computer.".. "You have a meeting in 5 minutes, Dave." "What are you doing, Dave?" Funny that my name really is Dave...
If you are doing design in-house, that may be alright. But if you have been hired to design for someone else, your real audience is that person that hired you. If she thinks it looks like crap, then it does, regardless of what the world will think.
If you make your living off contract design, your audience is completely different.
Ya know, in Ohio, we now have a magnetic strip on the badboy, and I've never seen it swiped... ever.
In Texas, we have a magnetic strip too. I had mine swiped once when buying a hunting/fishing license. (I assume to keep people from buying more than one license).
When I first got the magnetic-strip ID, I put it in an ATM machine to see what would happen. It spit it out, and printed a recipt with my social security number on it. Scarey.
But if cultural and influence and economic power is increasingly tied to cyberspace, and the ballooning business moving onto the Net and the Web, the rationale for most wars would evaporate. So would the idea of physical defense, one of the mainstays of the nation-state.
What exactly is the rationale for most wars?
I don't think physical defense will ever be obselete. There will always be people who want what you've got - and there are some things that can't be digitally reproduced. Food, for example. If me and some friends want your food, we will come take it. Then we will put up our own defenses to thwart you when you come to take it back. Then you will devise defenses of your own, so next time someone tries to take your stuff, you will thwart them. Then they will develop defenses...
Until there is digital reproduction of food, water, medicine, shelter.. there will always be potential for war.
Slashdot Mirror
Voted straight party libertarian.
You know you're in Texas when they have you put your ballot in a five gallon bucket.
wish
---
i think the obsession comes from free hardware. i could care less about cues or whatever, but i will enjoy cataloging my books and cds.
wish
---
No, I am in favor of government that does not tell me how to live my life, as long as I don't infringe on another's right to life or property.
How could it happen? It's already happened in the United States. Large corporations lobby the government to extend the period of time an artist's work is copyrighted. (A power of the government explicitly stated in the constitution.) As a result, despite there being no benefit to the person who actually created the work, I have to pay for the right to have a copy of a song written by someone who has been dead for years.
They are able to accomplish this precisely because the government is too big, and too powerful. If the government would stay out of the free market, then corporations wouldn't be able to make laws with lobbyists and money. The government has no place interfering, and trying to babysit the economy.
Intellectual property is a sticky topic, and one on which the constitution doesn't have much to say. It would be best to rethink intellectual property and ammend the constitution - so that the government can adequately protect your right to property.
Since you're determined to talk about music, here's my take on it: There is a difference between the words to a song and a recording of a performance of that song. Once someone is dead, there is little point to granting him exclusive rights to sing a song he wrote - but, in my opinion, the recordings of his performances should remain his property, to be willed to his descendants. You must also consider that, in the performance of a song, there are many other people involved. From the engineers to the producer to the mixing engineer to the mastering engineer, all these people have "performed" with the artist to make the recording you are listening to.
wish
Vote for freedom!
---
If I am in the business of doing scientific research, it is hard for me to compete with someone who gets money from the federal government to do their research.
If I am in the business of loaning money, I lose business on the loans that the federal government provides.
Most federal social programs are bad for capitalism. For instance, Bush wants to spend a few billion dollars building government-sponsored internet huts, where anyone can come to get internet access. His reasoning is that there are many who cannot afford computers, and so they are getting locked out of all the technical innovations. I agree with him that it would be nice if everyone had access to the new technology, but government is the wrong way to do it. Capitalism will work it out. You see, there is a guy in california that put some internet connected computers in his laundramat, and customers can surf while they wash. I bet he's raking it in. I can tell you this guy isn't voting for Bush. Also, the people trying to develop low-cost internet boxes - the people targeting their products for this demographic - would now have to compete with this government program, which they would be paying for.
I know we're not talking Bush here, but I thought that was a good illustration of how government social programs harm capitalism - they make people fund things that compete with their own business ideas. Not too nice.
As far as the corporations go, it is a cycle. Say there is no government check on Microsoft. It grows big and powerful, becomes a big nasty monopoly. It squashes the competition. All of a sudden, there is no reason for it to be innovative (if it ever was :), and it gets fat and lazy. Then, out of nowhere, comes someone who is not fat and lazy, with a better product, and upsets MS's control. That is how capitalism works. Maybe it's a bit slower than the government charging in and busting things up, but it's better because it's powered by the people, innovation, and capitalism.
The record industry is already seeing some upset. It got big, fat, and lazy, and all it will take is someone to figure out how to really succeed with digital music (mp3.com, maybe, if they'd stop with this my.mp3 thing) to upset it and change things for good. The record industry as we know it will crumple when someone comes up with a system that pleases the consumer and feeds the artist.
wish
Vote for freedom!
---
That is correct. The government should never have started babysiting these people, and it's time to stop. What should these people do? Seek help from churches, charities, and communities. These entities are better suited to meeting their individual needs and getting them back on their feet.
As for Social Security, Browne's plan is to continue paying Social Security to those already dependant on it. He will do this out of a privately (not government) managed fund filled with money saved from the trimming of excess government. Everyone is better off if we end Social Security. Refer to the study I linked to in my last post.
On Selling off the Environment: "I want to pay off the federal debt by auctioning off the assets the government shouldn't own -- western lands, power companies, unused military bases, and commodity reserves." I am assuming this includes National Forest lands, BLM lands, perhapes even National Wilderness Areas. This is almost as bad as Bush wanting to drill in the ANWR. Selling these lands in auction essentially to the highest corporate bidder could possibly close many of them to public use.
Yes. Individuals are better suited to care for those lands than the government. Been to a national forest recently? They're filthy. Besides, no one said that your community can't, as a community, purchase a large chunk of forest for your use.. Or your state, for that matter. But the federal government has no business doing it. (It is unconstitutional). Besides, private land management can provide better care for the land.
On closing down federal programs: "The federal government has no authority to be involved in any way in education, health care, welfare, law enforcement, the retirement business, or anything else the Constitution hasn't specified." Say goodbye to federal loans for education, research grants for science, national forests and parks, etc. Say hello to corporate control of the environment, massive unchecked monopolies, and an increase in federal crime becuase without federal law enforcement, who will enforce the laws of the US constitiution?
Federally funded science is bad for capitalism. Federal college loans hurt capitalism also. If there is a market for low-interest educational loans, someone will step up and provide them. But no one can compete with the federal government. Look at the increasing privatization of telecommunications - never before has it been so cheap, or you had so many options to communicate. Federal interferance in all these things hurts capitalism.
The idea of "unchecked corporations" is stupid. Who keeps them in check? The consumers. It's very simple.
without federal law enforcement, who will enforce the laws of the US constitiution?
What "laws of the US constitution?" Last I checked, the constitution was a description of government and a bill of rights for the citizens. By the way, most of the federal government today is unconstitutional, so someone is not doing a very good job of "enforcing the constitution."
wish
Vote for freedom!
---
Browne has everything to do with freedom. Browne wants to get the government out of your life, in all aspects. He is completely right-wing. He is the most right-wing candidate out there. His stance on drugs is right-wing: "Get the government out of it. Quit spending your tax dollars fighting a war that puts hundreds of thousands of nonviolent people in jail." His stance on abortion is right-wing: "The government has no place to make these decisions - get it out of the way." Should the government fund hospitals and clinics? No! Let private industry compete to offer you the best hospital or clinic. Let you choose which one to go to.
He is also planning on cutting social security calling it a big mess when in reality the administration costs of running it are a fraction of private insurance companies pay. Social Security also pays out worker's comp and disibility. Where will these people go?
Social Security is a big mess. Why don't you read this study (take time to read the whole thing) and think about what it would mean for you to take all your social security taxes and invest them yourself, and make, say, 18% returns on your investment. Then, if you die at 66, guess what? Your family can inherit your savings. Under Social Security, you can work all your life, "saving" hundreds of thousands of dollars with the government, die at 66, and your wife and kids not see a penny. That's a bad investment, my friend. Read that link above. You'll be surprised at the numbers.
Furthermore, Browne is not going to dump people out on the street. If you're dependant on Social Security, you'll continue to get it until you die. Browne is not going to crap on these people - he's got a plan to take care of them.
Browne is great if you're already wealthy or on your way there and aren't living on the wrong side of the tracks or on hard times and simply don't care about the working poor. Its like Forbes and his flat tax, a scam to keep rich people from paying taxes.
Browne is great if you believe you can manage your life better than the government. If you prefer the government to be your nanny, protecting you from bad decisions and responsibility, vote for anyone else.
Browne is about people having freedom and taking responsibility for thier actions. And, by the way, if you read that article I linked to above, cutting things like Social Security will help the poor get richer.
Why don't you go read through Harry Browne's website. Read up on his ideas and his plans for implementing them before you spout off about things you aren't sure about.
wish
Vote for freedom!
---
Even better question: "Are computer games any more fun now than they were 20 years ago?
17-20 years ago Infocom ruled the game scene, and I haven't played games as good since.
wish
Vote for freedom!
---
Why is this so different?
because everyone knows they're on a cell phone and cell phones are "cool."
Vote for freedom!
---
PalmOS has a TCP/IP stack, and PPP. I use it everyday.
wish
Vote for freedom!
---
I think the last bit of the article hits the nail on the head. Wearable computers aren't cool.
No teenage kid, college kid, soccer mom, or business man is going to stand in public with a finger in his ear, talking to his wrist.
This sounds like really really cool technology, but it's not going to be the "cool" thing to wear to the mall anytime soon.
wish
Vote for freedom!
---
Vote for freedom!
---
I never saw a phrack past issue 47, and that was five or six years ago.. I did see mention of them the other day, and some quote from issue 49, which means they must have gotten over whatever problems plagued them after 47. I never knew they had a website.. We used to get it off BBSs.. hehe..
Vote for freedom!
---
Well, that's not the way they're doing it. You type in a form and it finds the e-mail addresses for your local Reps and Senators for your state, and that's who it e-mails. It doesn't even tell you the addresses, although you could find them for yourself by searching the net.
You see, all the e-mail isn't going to the same place.
And, sure, someone could write a script to spam everyone in washington. So what. This campaign targets the congressment that represent each individual e-mailer. So my rep only gets e-mail from people in the dallas area, etc.
wish
Vote for freedom!
---
The Answer!
To Life... The Universe.. Everything!
wish
Vote for freedom!
---
gotta love that professional looking graphic illustrating the branches.
Vote for freedom!
---
You are correct in all your assertations.
:)
:)
There is a small market for minidisc, however, outside of the consumer-music mainstream. MD-DATA has made an inroad in the project studio market, with several products (Yamaha in particular) designed for multitrack recording on the MD-DATA.
Tapers have also shown interest in minidisc, mainly because of it's small size and inexpense compared to DAT. If you're doing stealth taping (because the band doesn't allow it) minidisc is a good medium for you.*
Now there's fierce competition in the home recording market, with Zip drive recording, hard disk recording, "budget" ADATs and DA-38s.. I think fostex even makes a machine with a SCSI port, so you can use Zip, Jazz, SCSI HD, or whatever you want. It will be interesting to see if minidisc survives in this market. (I hope it does, because I own a Yamaha MD8).
I agree that minidisc is probably a lost cause for retail music, but Sony has found some interesting ways to keep it alive. Their new MP3 player also plays ATRAC, and the software that comes with it rips to ATRAC, not MP3.
The main reason for my post was the disagreement with the statement "it will die in 5 years or less, I predict"
I think it was the "I predict" that really got to me.
later- wish
* I do not endorse the taping of bands who do not permit it. I believe that bands would gain from permitting it, but if they don't I respect that.
Vote for freedom!
---
He changed the way he spelled his name half a dozen times. I'm using the spelling from Bleach.
I used that spelling intentionally, to troll for people like you who think they know everything.
wishus
Vote for freedom!
---
- The CD-R is not re-recordable. MD is.
- You can't fit a CD-R in your pocket to tape shows. Ever seen a pocket-sized CD-R with a mic and a portable power supply? me niether. If you're going to bring a deck, you might as well bring DAT.
3) the minidisc format never really caught on here in the US. it will die in 5 yrs or less, I predict.You predict? Well, that's nice. Do you have any evidence, or are you just a seer?
wish
Vote for freedom!
---
no, not really..
Vote for freedom!
---
i'm assuming that's pronounced "eye-bib-lee-o" and not "ib-ib-lee-o" or "ibby-blee-o" or "i-buy-bly-o" or somethign else.. the word just looks mangled..
wish
Vote for freedom!
---
the most useful thing to do with this technology would be speech-to-text. but then again, if the technology is that good, why don't i have it on my desktop?
.. "You have a meeting in 5 minutes, Dave." "What are you doing, Dave?" Funny that my name really is Dave...
now text-to-speech synthesis would be alot of fun.
"I am a Palm IIIxe computer."
wishus
Vote for freedom!
---
i wanna go to mir. i somehow doubt that training for space missions is going to make for great prime-time entertainment, though.
wishus
Vote for freedom!
---
If you are doing design in-house, that may be alright. But if you have been hired to design for someone else, your real audience is that person that hired you. If she thinks it looks like crap, then it does, regardless of what the world will think.
If you make your living off contract design, your audience is completely different.
wishus
Vote for freedom!
---
In Texas, we have a magnetic strip too. I had mine swiped once when buying a hunting/fishing license. (I assume to keep people from buying more than one license).
When I first got the magnetic-strip ID, I put it in an ATM machine to see what would happen. It spit it out, and printed a recipt with my social security number on it. Scarey.
wishus
Vote for freedom!
---
What exactly is the rationale for most wars?
I don't think physical defense will ever be obselete. There will always be people who want what you've got - and there are some things that can't be digitally reproduced. Food, for example. If me and some friends want your food, we will come take it. Then we will put up our own defenses to thwart you when you come to take it back. Then you will devise defenses of your own, so next time someone tries to take your stuff, you will thwart them. Then they will develop defenses...
Until there is digital reproduction of food, water, medicine, shelter.. there will always be potential for war.
wishus
Vote for freedom!
---