Well, there's one way to guarantee an irrational, over-the-top response: write it clearly on a dollar bill then hand it to a TSA employee at your local friendly airport, grinning wildly.
A helpful rewrite for someone from a few years in the past:
"Sequences of letters and numbers have been proposed as a way to stop forgery of U.S currency by bored students of Michigan University. Unfortunately sequences of letters and numbers are easy to forge and can be typed into an editor, compiled, and run, infecting your system. Banks would most likely need to read currency that have seuqneces of letters and numbers to ensure the authenticity of the bill. If the sequences of letters and numbers were forged, typed into an editor, compiled, and run, it could infect the bank with a virus."
1) Hypothetically remembering something perfectly; 2) Hypothetically making perfectly photorealistic drawings; 3) Taking a photograph.
It seems to me that only the first would be covered unconditionally by a fundamental human right as understood by international law. Consider: - ECHR Art.8: freedom of thought; - it wouldn't be admissible under Anglo-Saxon criminal law: there is no crime without actus reus, and there is "No punishment without law" (Art.7 ECHR).
The second would be covered under freedom of expression with qualification. Consider Art.10(2) ECHR exceptions for, inter al., "national security, [...], the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence".
The third may be covered by freedom of expression but includes operation of a recording device which may be treated separately.
Greece often arrests people for taking photos of things which may have some public security interest. They arrest plane spotters from time to time and it sometimes reaches the British news.
It's not really very interesting except to note that photography isn't really a fundamental human right and, outside the US and to a lesser extent the UK, you need to mind local law. If the business concerned didn't even do this little bit of research then I question how good the game is going to be - but the gap between reality and fantasy gets ever wider.
He managed to rise among the ranks to the point he was made a soviet comissar and worked for Radio Moscow as a propaganda broadcaster. He then continued to work as a soviet propaganda broadcaster in Cuba [...] he found himself disillusioned with what communism actually meant
This is like becoming a company PR flunky then becoming "disillusioned with what capitalism actually meant".
And then, of course, wanting to promote your book about it.
Between individuals there is no concept of rights.
That's.... weird. So if a group of people try to harm you, that's bad. And if a single person tries to take your pony, that's bad. But if someone tries to rape you and murder you, that's OK? Or does that come under property rights? If so, does that mean I can sell myself into slavery?
I am now very interested in you, personally speaking, you have gained my attention, I want to get to know you closely.
I am just bashing out nearly random words on a keyboard while doing some work which doesn't require 100% attention. Is that all it takes to make someone personally very interesting? Either your standards are low or your life sheltered.
I'm not arguing that it's necessary to nationalise, but whether - having decided that it's necessary to nationalise - you then need to kill the old owners.
Re nationalisation, Stalin's answer for the farm would probably be something like:
1) Because they'll overprice their shit, use some of the profits to exploit employees who would otherwise starve because they have no rights over the fertile land, and cream off the rest some for themselves while doing fuck all work;
2) Because large scale farming is more efficient than small scale, and we want to industrialise the nation, not continue to serve peasants.
1 was typically used as a reason to kill the old owners - they were enemies of the bla bla and would continue exploiting others. But, contrary to some of the apparent attitudes of the arch-capitalists in this thread, there is no such thing as someone who deserves corporal punishment for being "evil".
2 is true, but sudden mass nationalisation caused a painful period before increased efficiency was reached. It brings to mind the way landowners pushed people into the cities during the British industrial revolution, ending smallholdings on the one hand and filling the cities on the other. But the pace in Britain was slower, still causing a huge amount of social anguish but more spread out in time and space.
This is interesting. My USSR anecdotes would mostly come from family business city trips - my mother represented a certain foreign car manufacturer in Russia the late '60s. I heard about the differences with the towns and villages but did not hear direct stories. It is sometimes hard to remind myself and others that we compare one place 40-50 years ago with another today.
No he doesn't. I don't think you recall this, but while there were certainly periods where the Soviets could produce food and heavy industry, they always had some trouble with it. And from the 1970's onward, the Soviet Union actually imported a lot of grain from the West, including the US. The actual collective farms were inefficient and the economy itself was stagnant. Grain shipments were a significant reason that detente worked.
Import/export was a tiny proportion of Soviet GDP, and in import terms consisted mainly of grains, certain chemicals and high tech. Grain was paid for with exported fuel. The USSR supported 300 million people mostly self-sufficiently, with the majority of trade being with Eastern Europe. If you regard that as not really producing anything, something is clouding your perspective.
A lot of this was due to the increasing corruption of the period, which the poster mentions. The Brezhnev period was when the Soviet Union ended up crumbling because the collective leadership tolerated corruption like no other Communist regime had before.
Indeed. Considering something almost on-topic for Slashdot, I would say that the rot set in earlier, not long after the USSR could have been said to claim first place in the space and computing race: Khrushchev's technology policy suggested that it was acceptable to copy from and build on what the West. This guaranteed eternal catch-up (like Linux on the desktop;'().
While I imagine that there are always going to be outliers, I wonder what you think would give incentive to most workers to do work?
Why does the academic work? Why does the healthcare worker work? He is clearly bright enough to do something which requires much less effort and is much better paid.
They will also work harder to gain the ability to make their life just a little less bland.
Absolutely. Most people, given the right circumstances, can enjoy their work.
I don't suppose you have seen pictures of what most cities in the USSR looked like, but I think the only thing that would keep the suicide rate down would be constant alcohol intake.
That's just your senses being dulled by the horrible flashiness of modern Western nations. Have you seen film of North England in the '80s? Almost everywhere in the '50s? Relaxing is taking a walk, having a swim, chatting with your friends, reading a book, going to the threatre/cinema, etc. Not always shiny flashing lights and loud music.
Who cares about selling anything when they have a set wage that they get no matter what, and they can never achieve any differentiation through those means?
Wages were absolutely not set "no matter what" - better positions got better wages, and the USSR was far more meritocratic than the West, automatically giving free education to those who excelled at school. But wages were not set in typical free-market terms, i.e. you would not get paid more for selling more. Why would you? There is no social advantage in getting people to buy more than they feel they need.
Universal socialist brotherhood? Now, THAT is silly. Sure, they'll never be impoverished,
But that's the point: "universal socialist brotherhood" is the closest to a guarantee against impoverishment for you and your children.
but they'll never have much of a chance for anything better either. It's numbing just to think about it.
In the West, you need intelligence and money to climb higher. In the USSR, you needed only intelligence. Now you also had not to open your mouth against the Party, even when the Party was full of shit - can't argue with you on that one - but how far are most people able to go with freely and honestly criticising their boss? Being unable to speak up against the state in a centrally planned economy is as being unable to speak up against your boss in a free market economy.
Granted. I don't tend to get emotional about personal experiences (among family or strangers), so I wouldn't care if you tried to tell me how great Franco was or even that my family were collateral damage. I may tell you some things that have happened, but calmly.
Looking at what I've said, I understood udachny to describe that his family owned a village and that the village was nationalised and his family killed (perhaps for owning it). I said that the village could have been taken without killing his family. While I did say that I was sorry to hear about the deaths, I see that what I said may have sounded flippant.
Putting it as plainly as possible, Stalin was a vicious, paranoid bastard whose means were completely disproportionate to his aims. I am personally opposed to capital punishment or forced labour - I think enough people are sufficiently good and productive that even those who refuse to work can be fed. No matter my opionion on treatment of private property, and no matter that I think udachny (as roman_mir) sometimes trolls, I shall take his words at face value today and say clearly, udachny, that I am sorry that your family was killed. Perhaps your ideology or your experience will not allow you to detach the ideology from the means, so perhaps my words are meaningless. Perhaps you are more angry now. But there you go. I do also appreciate your responses.
Oh right, a road to damascus conversion due to self inflicted guilt or some other BS and now you're trying to make up for it. *yawn*
Yeah, not wanting to be a cunt is so boring. *yawn*
Then there's the fact that life's much more enjoyable when you aren't chasing the dragon, and you're helping to build a world that's better for everyone. Sure, it's more challenging, but I wouldn't expect a capitalist to want a challenge.
You mean people like that russian guy who's grandmother had first hand experience? Yeah , what would he know. He only lived there.
You mean the second-hand story by sockpuppeted troll roman_mir about the 22 years taken to get moved into better housing? Well, I guess it's worse than Britain in 2012 - here 1 in 4 authorities only take ~10 years to move people to adequate accommodation.
Ah , the usual twisting of logic. Because someone gets private treatment then in your lefty brain that means someone else suffers whereas in actual fact it usually means theres more public money available for everyone else because that person did use not public funds.
I'm referring to a state without a public healthcare system. In my "lefty" brain, anyone who dies prematurely because of a lack of state healthcare counts as a death "caused by capitalism". Similarly for lack of housing or good nutrition. And analogously for misery.
If government rules "cause" deaths then we must include rules which enforce property rights.
Or better yet - go live in cuba or north korea.
I have as many choices for a communist state as you have for a capitalist one. You're getting more of a flavour of what you want, though - I'll grant you that.
Evil always triumphs over good because evil can choose to do good or evil.
I am hesitant to respond because you speak with the broad strokes of an amateur, but of course an economic system can encourage or discourage particular sorts of behaviour.
apologist - perhaps. I don't get angry at people as much as some do. For example, Franco's actions clearly caused deaths in my family, but I don't really feel anything against Franco. It just happened. It is life.
student - well, I am doing a law degree for amusement. But many years ago I took mathematics. And I have written accounting systems, handling far too much money. I have started up and sold a fairly successful business. I have been a clear capitalist in the past. It is behind me now.
facts - well, we've been very short on them.
anecdotes - kinda why I'm here, although it's hard to appreciate anecdotes from people who have such an obvious drum to beat.
beloved - no, but I think I would have preferred to have lived in late Soviet Russia than Thatcherite Britain or any time during Franco's Spain.
communist system - it simply wasn't.
evil - blah.
experiment - no more an "experiment" than capitalism, except that capitalism died when limited liability companies came to pass, then died harder when the government decided it had the right to create money. What we have today is good only to the extent that it is well-mixed.
caused millions of deaths - what counts as a death "caused" by capitalism? is everyone who died prematurely because they couldn't afford the best healthcare or food a casualty of capitalism?
I am not comparing with 3rd world level but with 22+ years ago. (Well, OK, I wasn't. In my first post that you responded to I explicitly mentioned Russia. I don't know as much about the Ukraine and my understanding is that Kiev was not so well off, so maybe standards of living in the Ukraine have not reduced as much as in Russia.)
more street kids in london than I ever did in Kiev.
Unless you are very old, you are making shit up. It's true that during its most capitalist period in mid-C19, there were estimates of thousands of street children in London. It remains true that there are some 16-17 year olds sleeping rough, as one would expect in the rich, founding city of capitalism, but it would be hard to "see" them in the sense of knowing they are e.g. 17 and not 18.
I stay with my inlaws in a standard tower block in a standard suburb and they work in factories so they're not rich.
To compare, some of my family used to live in a "standard tower block" in Madrid in the 1980s and you could go there from Barajas without seeing any of the homeless people of Madrid. You would also completely miss Canada Real, a shanty town in the south of madrid now hosting (2008 figures) around 40,000 people. It is easy to think you are seeing the whole picture.
This is miserable, but bearable existence. This is pretty much the same that was before, though more monetised.
Allowances were replaced with cash payments which do not keep pace with now unregulated prices.
some simple vacations like a caretaker or a social worker are always open and the government is making sure you can get at least _some_ employment.
Does the government still guarantee to give everyone work?
Technology was there, (at least some) people had the money, but the stores were empty since not enough electronics (not only electronics, but books and some food as well) were assigned to the region. [...] This is something that should never happen in a capitalist society.
And yet sometimes shortages do occur in a capitalist society. Logistical problems are solved with technocratic solutions, i.e. an appropriate algorithm. They work equally well on a computer operated by Comrade Bob or owned by Bob Inc.: compare, say, the NHS and Walmart, two organisations heavily involved in logistics, one state-owned and the other private, yet both usually able to get stuff to the right place.
Slashdot Mirror
In brief, Microsoft wanted to demonstrate that puppies die when you buy an unauthorised copy of Windows.
It doesn't matter who was doing it - what matters is that the US government needed to help this downtrodden altruist get its cut.
used a real security model, locked down the system, and there would be no malware, no virus, no antivirus, no UEFI, no nothing today.
And a pony in perpetual motion. Never forget that.
Well, there's one way to guarantee an irrational, over-the-top response: write it clearly on a dollar bill then hand it to a TSA employee at your local friendly airport, grinning wildly.
A helpful rewrite for someone from a few years in the past:
"Sequences of letters and numbers have been proposed as a way to stop forgery of U.S currency by bored students of Michigan University. Unfortunately sequences of letters and numbers are easy to forge and can be typed into an editor, compiled, and run, infecting your system. Banks would most likely need to read currency that have seuqneces of letters and numbers to ensure the authenticity of the bill. If the sequences of letters and numbers were forged, typed into an editor, compiled, and run, it could infect the bank with a virus."
1) Hypothetically remembering something perfectly;
2) Hypothetically making perfectly photorealistic drawings;
3) Taking a photograph.
It seems to me that only the first would be covered unconditionally by a fundamental human right as understood by international law. Consider:
- ECHR Art.8: freedom of thought;
- it wouldn't be admissible under Anglo-Saxon criminal law: there is no crime without actus reus, and there is "No punishment without law" (Art.7 ECHR).
The second would be covered under freedom of expression with qualification. Consider Art.10(2) ECHR exceptions for, inter al., "national security, [...], the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence".
The third may be covered by freedom of expression but includes operation of a recording device which may be treated separately.
Nature is not a sentient being and it does not gift anything to anyone.
Greece bonds are weak but slow-moving - in economic jargon, "slippery".
And, contrary to Art.3(3) TEU, everyone else has a low rate of interest.
Surely if it were dissolved then it would turn into an EU solution.
First you fight it, then you become it.
Greece often arrests people for taking photos of things which may have some public security interest. They arrest plane spotters from time to time and it sometimes reaches the British news.
It's not really very interesting except to note that photography isn't really a fundamental human right and, outside the US and to a lesser extent the UK, you need to mind local law. If the business concerned didn't even do this little bit of research then I question how good the game is going to be - but the gap between reality and fantasy gets ever wider.
He managed to rise among the ranks to the point he was made a soviet comissar and worked for Radio Moscow as a propaganda broadcaster. He then continued to work as a soviet propaganda broadcaster in Cuba [...] he found himself disillusioned with what communism actually meant
This is like becoming a company PR flunky then becoming "disillusioned with what capitalism actually meant".
And then, of course, wanting to promote your book about it.
Between individuals there is no concept of rights.
That's.... weird. So if a group of people try to harm you, that's bad. And if a single person tries to take your pony, that's bad. But if someone tries to rape you and murder you, that's OK? Or does that come under property rights? If so, does that mean I can sell myself into slavery?
I am now very interested in you, personally speaking, you have gained my attention, I want to get to know you closely.
I am just bashing out nearly random words on a keyboard while doing some work which doesn't require 100% attention. Is that all it takes to make someone personally very interesting? Either your standards are low or your life sheltered.
I'm not arguing that it's necessary to nationalise, but whether - having decided that it's necessary to nationalise - you then need to kill the old owners.
Re nationalisation, Stalin's answer for the farm would probably be something like:
1) Because they'll overprice their shit, use some of the profits to exploit employees who would otherwise starve because they have no rights over the fertile land, and cream off the rest some for themselves while doing fuck all work;
2) Because large scale farming is more efficient than small scale, and we want to industrialise the nation, not continue to serve peasants.
1 was typically used as a reason to kill the old owners - they were enemies of the bla bla and would continue exploiting others. But, contrary to some of the apparent attitudes of the arch-capitalists in this thread, there is no such thing as someone who deserves corporal punishment for being "evil".
2 is true, but sudden mass nationalisation caused a painful period before increased efficiency was reached. It brings to mind the way landowners pushed people into the cities during the British industrial revolution, ending smallholdings on the one hand and filling the cities on the other. But the pace in Britain was slower, still causing a huge amount of social anguish but more spread out in time and space.
This is interesting. My USSR anecdotes would mostly come from family business city trips - my mother represented a certain foreign car manufacturer in Russia the late '60s. I heard about the differences with the towns and villages but did not hear direct stories. It is sometimes hard to remind myself and others that we compare one place 40-50 years ago with another today.
(FWIW median annual salary in the UK is ~$34300.)
No he doesn't. I don't think you recall this, but while there were certainly periods where the Soviets could produce food and heavy industry, they always had some trouble with it. And from the 1970's onward, the Soviet Union actually imported a lot of grain from the West, including the US. The actual collective farms were inefficient and the economy itself was stagnant. Grain shipments were a significant reason that detente worked.
Import/export was a tiny proportion of Soviet GDP, and in import terms consisted mainly of grains, certain chemicals and high tech. Grain was paid for with exported fuel. The USSR supported 300 million people mostly self-sufficiently, with the majority of trade being with Eastern Europe. If you regard that as not really producing anything, something is clouding your perspective.
A lot of this was due to the increasing corruption of the period, which the poster mentions. The Brezhnev period was when the Soviet Union ended up crumbling because the collective leadership tolerated corruption like no other Communist regime had before.
Indeed. Considering something almost on-topic for Slashdot, I would say that the rot set in earlier, not long after the USSR could have been said to claim first place in the space and computing race: Khrushchev's technology policy suggested that it was acceptable to copy from and build on what the West. This guaranteed eternal catch-up (like Linux on the desktop ;'().
While I imagine that there are always going to be outliers, I wonder what you think would give incentive to most workers to do work?
Why does the academic work? Why does the healthcare worker work? He is clearly bright enough to do something which requires much less effort and is much better paid.
They will also work harder to gain the ability to make their life just a little less bland.
Absolutely. Most people, given the right circumstances, can enjoy their work.
I don't suppose you have seen pictures of what most cities in the USSR looked like, but I think the only thing that would keep the suicide rate down would be constant alcohol intake.
That's just your senses being dulled by the horrible flashiness of modern Western nations. Have you seen film of North England in the '80s? Almost everywhere in the '50s? Relaxing is taking a walk, having a swim, chatting with your friends, reading a book, going to the threatre/cinema, etc. Not always shiny flashing lights and loud music.
Who cares about selling anything when they have a set wage that they get no matter what, and they can never achieve any differentiation through those means?
Wages were absolutely not set "no matter what" - better positions got better wages, and the USSR was far more meritocratic than the West, automatically giving free education to those who excelled at school. But wages were not set in typical free-market terms, i.e. you would not get paid more for selling more. Why would you? There is no social advantage in getting people to buy more than they feel they need.
Universal socialist brotherhood? Now, THAT is silly. Sure, they'll never be impoverished,
But that's the point: "universal socialist brotherhood" is the closest to a guarantee against impoverishment for you and your children.
but they'll never have much of a chance for anything better either. It's numbing just to think about it.
In the West, you need intelligence and money to climb higher. In the USSR, you needed only intelligence. Now you also had not to open your mouth against the Party, even when the Party was full of shit - can't argue with you on that one - but how far are most people able to go with freely and honestly criticising their boss? Being unable to speak up against the state in a centrally planned economy is as being unable to speak up against your boss in a free market economy.
Granted. I don't tend to get emotional about personal experiences (among family or strangers), so I wouldn't care if you tried to tell me how great Franco was or even that my family were collateral damage. I may tell you some things that have happened, but calmly.
Looking at what I've said, I understood udachny to describe that his family owned a village and that the village was nationalised and his family killed (perhaps for owning it). I said that the village could have been taken without killing his family. While I did say that I was sorry to hear about the deaths, I see that what I said may have sounded flippant.
Putting it as plainly as possible, Stalin was a vicious, paranoid bastard whose means were completely disproportionate to his aims. I am personally opposed to capital punishment or forced labour - I think enough people are sufficiently good and productive that even those who refuse to work can be fed. No matter my opionion on treatment of private property, and no matter that I think udachny (as roman_mir) sometimes trolls, I shall take his words at face value today and say clearly, udachny, that I am sorry that your family was killed. Perhaps your ideology or your experience will not allow you to detach the ideology from the means, so perhaps my words are meaningless. Perhaps you are more angry now. But there you go. I do also appreciate your responses.
Oh right, a road to damascus conversion due to self inflicted guilt or some other BS and now you're trying to make up for it. *yawn*
Yeah, not wanting to be a cunt is so boring. *yawn*
Then there's the fact that life's much more enjoyable when you aren't chasing the dragon, and you're helping to build a world that's better for everyone. Sure, it's more challenging, but I wouldn't expect a capitalist to want a challenge.
You mean people like that russian guy who's grandmother had first hand experience? Yeah , what would he know. He only lived there.
You mean the second-hand story by sockpuppeted troll roman_mir about the 22 years taken to get moved into better housing? Well, I guess it's worse than Britain in 2012 - here 1 in 4 authorities only take ~10 years to move people to adequate accommodation.
Ah , the usual twisting of logic. Because someone gets private treatment then in your lefty brain that means someone else suffers whereas in actual fact it usually means theres more public money available for everyone else because that person did use not public funds.
I'm referring to a state without a public healthcare system. In my "lefty" brain, anyone who dies prematurely because of a lack of state healthcare counts as a death "caused by capitalism". Similarly for lack of housing or good nutrition. And analogously for misery.
If government rules "cause" deaths then we must include rules which enforce property rights.
Or better yet - go live in cuba or north korea.
I have as many choices for a communist state as you have for a capitalist one. You're getting more of a flavour of what you want, though - I'll grant you that.
Evil always triumphs over good because evil can choose to do good or evil.
Your argument has engineered its own demise.
Exactly. The free market is no better than anarchy. Thanks for clarifying my point.
I am hesitant to respond because you speak with the broad strokes of an amateur, but of course an economic system can encourage or discourage particular sorts of behaviour.
clueless - definitely.
Marxist - hell no.
apologist - perhaps. I don't get angry at people as much as some do. For example, Franco's actions clearly caused deaths in my family, but I don't really feel anything against Franco. It just happened. It is life.
student - well, I am doing a law degree for amusement. But many years ago I took mathematics. And I have written accounting systems, handling far too much money. I have started up and sold a fairly successful business. I have been a clear capitalist in the past. It is behind me now.
facts - well, we've been very short on them.
anecdotes - kinda why I'm here, although it's hard to appreciate anecdotes from people who have such an obvious drum to beat.
beloved - no, but I think I would have preferred to have lived in late Soviet Russia than Thatcherite Britain or any time during Franco's Spain.
communist system - it simply wasn't.
evil - blah.
experiment - no more an "experiment" than capitalism, except that capitalism died when limited liability companies came to pass, then died harder when the government decided it had the right to create money. What we have today is good only to the extent that it is well-mixed.
caused millions of deaths - what counts as a death "caused" by capitalism? is everyone who died prematurely because they couldn't afford the best healthcare or food a casualty of capitalism?
misery - resembling above.
But its hardly 3rd world level
I am not comparing with 3rd world level but with 22+ years ago. (Well, OK, I wasn't. In my first post that you responded to I explicitly mentioned Russia. I don't know as much about the Ukraine and my understanding is that Kiev was not so well off, so maybe standards of living in the Ukraine have not reduced as much as in Russia.)
more street kids in london than I ever did in Kiev.
Unless you are very old, you are making shit up. It's true that during its most capitalist period in mid-C19, there were estimates of thousands of street children in London. It remains true that there are some 16-17 year olds sleeping rough, as one would expect in the rich, founding city of capitalism, but it would be hard to "see" them in the sense of knowing they are e.g. 17 and not 18.
I stay with my inlaws in a standard tower block in a standard suburb and they work in factories so they're not rich.
To compare, some of my family used to live in a "standard tower block" in Madrid in the 1980s and you could go there from Barajas without seeing any of the homeless people of Madrid. You would also completely miss Canada Real, a shanty town in the south of madrid now hosting (2008 figures) around 40,000 people. It is easy to think you are seeing the whole picture.
Thanks for your feedback.
This is miserable, but bearable existence. This is pretty much the same that was before, though more monetised.
Allowances were replaced with cash payments which do not keep pace with now unregulated prices.
some simple vacations like a caretaker or a social worker are always open and the government is making sure you can get at least _some_ employment.
Does the government still guarantee to give everyone work?
Technology was there, (at least some) people had the money, but the stores were empty since not enough electronics (not only electronics, but books and some food as well) were assigned to the region. [...] This is something that should never happen in a capitalist society.
And yet sometimes shortages do occur in a capitalist society. Logistical problems are solved with technocratic solutions, i.e. an appropriate algorithm. They work equally well on a computer operated by Comrade Bob or owned by Bob Inc.: compare, say, the NHS and Walmart, two organisations heavily involved in logistics, one state-owned and the other private, yet both usually able to get stuff to the right place.
Well, what can I say? There is profit in revenge, but not for the one who seeks it.
You're happy he goes another day without being confronted with serious personal consequences to his beliefs that might change the way he thinks?
Ah, the free market in practice: hit them until they agrees with you.