I'm no physicist or astro-physicist, but from what I've read, the presence of 'worm-holes' has been 100% confirmed. The problem is however, that the worm-holes are too small to actually do anything. However, again, I believe that it has been confirmed that anti-matter can be used to expand worm-holes, and anti-can be produced at least in minute quantities. So get ready to dismiss the unknown quite so quickly.
But, the population is declining, and demand isn't declining, its growth is just slowing slowing. The computer retailers will still sell enough computers to sustain themselves. However instead of selling 3M one year and 6M the next year, they'll be selling 3M one year and 3,050,000 the next year. As long as the companies are currently profitable they'll stay profitable.
But, the population of say the US is continuously growing. And since the population will be most likely growing forever, the market for computers will most likely grow forever.
I don't see a peaceful end to this, because there is a lot of money at stake, and whenever there is money, there is also a rabid foaming-at-the-mouth mob of greedy bastards willing to trample anybody in their way to get at it.
Now, in a properly socialist country music would indeed belong to the people. Music would be distibuted free or at cost, without millionaire artists and execs.
However, at this moment the West is a capitalist society where everyone has a right to better themselves at the expense of others. Therefore, the RIAA has every right to make money however they can, and if you try circumventing their rules then it just makes you a thieve and as equally greedy. Not to mention lazy.
And how do you determine the equality of risk. Based solely on a genetic test for an extremely small subset of possible genetic risks? The fact is there is such a large myriad of possible risks for each person that merely being high risk in one area is insufficient to use as base to determine overall risk. Bob might have a high risk of heart attack, but Joe might have a higher risk of crashing his car, Jane might have a higher risk of falling off a cliff in the Himalayas, and Bill might have a higher risk of being eaten by a shark.
However, it is impossible to measure all risks a person faces over the entire duration of their lives. And therefore even more impossible to compare the risks that different people face. Without an accurate indicator of the total risk a person faces, any small indicator of risk is useless. It may be higher than that of another person, or the person may have other risks that make the first one negligible.
Insurance is about pooling risks. The insurance entity just have to hope that statistically everything will eventually even out.
However, much as I despise capitalism, I do recognize that most of the world is capitalist, and that therefore insurance companies have legal rights to look out for their own best interest. Regardless of whether we agree with with the rules or whether the rules benefit the people, we must follow the rules and allow the insurance companies to operate as they see fit. By selectively disobeying rules we only drift towards anarchy.
The obvious solution to that problem is to eliminate government programs of insurance
The ideal and necessary solution would be to replace the private insurance companies with government insurance. The U.S. has the highest per capita health care/insurance spending in the world, it also has the largest private health care/insurance industry. Coincidence?
All though a large beaurocracy may be inefficient, it is no more inefficient then a large company. In addition a government institution is run in order to benefit the people, as opposed to benefitting itself.
For the most part people are allowed to speak without permission from the authorities, and this is quite consistent with a peaceful society. A society in which people arbitrarily silence each other with force is not peaceful. Even if this result is acheived through a democratic process.
I never said stifle people by force. However, having 300 million make an intelligent vote on a bill to pass before the commons/congress/knesset is not practical.
And which people are these? Our commie overlords?
They are the democratically elected officials as far as I know.
When did this surrender take place? Or do you have a different definition of "voluntary" than everyone else does?
When you go to the ballot box you give the person you are voting for permission to speak on your behalf and to represent you. If you do not wish to surrendor your voice to them, then you are perfectly free to run by yourself.
This is a good point about democracy - if you are wronged by the government, you don't necessarily have any recourse, other than the ballot, which is totally ineffecual.
Let me put a capitalist pig spin on this idea to make easier for you to understand. Say you have voting shares in a company. You might allow some to act as your proxy and vote on your behalf. However if the person acting for you does something you don't approve of, then it is you tough luck. Next time either do it yourself or pay more attention to who you let represent itself.
Typically communists seek to over-politicize every aspect of life; Stalin allowed political concerns to determine which people should be officers.
So people appointed to various offices for political reasons is unique to communist countries is unique? Not the last time that I checked.
Wrong. The civil war was over by 1921. (Actually, for all practical purposes the civil war was over by the end of 1920.) Having defeated the whites and the democratic socialists the bolsheviks turned to an even more persistent source of opposition: the peasantry. The bolsheviks diverted considerable military manpower and equipment to suppressing local uprisings even during the civil war. This includes the use of heavy artillery and warplanes against villages which violently resisted collectivization
Did I say the extended past 1921. The red armies committed grave attrocities against civilian populations. So did the white armies backed by western governments, particularily in the portion of the war fought in eastern Russia.
The Kolchak regime in Siberia was funded, supplied, and armed by the U.S. and Britain. Without foreign support the government would never have lasted as long as it did. The British equiped white armies in Estonia. Arcangel and Murmansk were held by the British. Denikin had large numbers of foreign troops. Without backing from the west the civil war would have lasted at most months. And that my friend is a fact you might want to look up.
And by the way, the Ukraine is not a region of Russia. When Moscow ruled over the Ukranians it resulted in great misery. BTW, have you ever known a Ukranian or someone of Ukranian descent (especially a Ukranian Jew)? If so, what do they think about your enthusiastic defense of the USSR?
The Ukraine is not a part of Russia proper. It was, however, the birthplace of Russia (remember Kiev), and for the large part of the last 1100 years it has been under Russian control.
Yes, and at least I'm not defending this practice, like you are!
Did I ever speak in the defense of labour camps? Your statement was that communism is evil because Russia had labour camps. My argument wasn't to show that the Soviet government was justified, just that other nations are no less guilty.
Let's not also forget the institutionalized torture, the practice of raping daughters and wives of prisoners in front of them, the systematic imprisonment or relocation of innocent families of victims of the NKVD/KGB
Note carefully that I am not condemning this practice. However, previous to Cheka/NKVD/KGB czarist Russia had a long and happy history of secret police involved in the practice of terror and abuse. To blame the Cheka/NKVD/KGB on communism is absurd. Blame it instead on peculiarities of Russian leadership.
The fact is that Russian was extremely backwards before the communists came to power. Despite tremendous hurdles they were forced to overcome, they accomplished many things that enabled Russia to progress. What was once largely an uneducated population is now of the most highly educated in the world, the industrial revolution took full grip under communism, science, arts, and culture flourished.
The major point that you seem hung up is that democracy and communism are mutually exclusive. That has been one of the most successful propaganda campaigns of all time. You are aware that Soviet Russia was in fact a democracy? It is merely a coincidence that the Bolsheviks outlawed other parties. Otherwise, Soviet Russia would have been every bit as democratic as the U.S. or Canada. All the short-falls of Soviet Russia that you have pointed out are short-falls of dictatorships not communism. I sure as hell don't want to live under a dictatorship, but to me a democratic communist government is as close to utopian as it gets. BR
From a base point of view it comes down to who you want to run things. An entity looking out solely for itself or an entity looking out for the best needs of everyone. Doesn't seem to hard for me.
And it would be called a gulag. That's where soviet communists put people who disagreed with them.
I'm well aware of what a gulag is. However, why do you continuously insist in bringing up points to knock Russia, when those points are equally valid anywhere else in the world, for any form of government.
You sure do like employing this type of argument. What it amounts to is this: the US once made the horrible mistake of banning alcohol, so now that the barn door's open, why not just cause more trouble banning other stuff?
I am not in favour of prohibition, and am not attempting to defend it, but am trying to point out to the poster that Canada is not the only nation in world that has imposed various restrictions and should not be condemned on that point.
Most (around 99%) of the drugs developed in the US are developed by private, for-profit, capitalist pig-dog pharmaceutical companies. You must be disappointed we still haven't appointed a Commissar of Medicine to nationalize them.
And in Soviet Russia drug funding was done by government, and in European countries and Canada it is largely a mix of government and private funding. Does the fact that it is 99% privately funded in the U.S. make it any better? No. Then why bring it up.
I am truly happy for you that the one country you happen to live in is the best one on the planet.
That's not my opinion, that's opinion of the U.N.. Personally, I plan in moving to Europe within a couple of years. Either Britain, Germany, or Russia.
And you my friend are an embarrasement to Canadians. In a perfect world there would be special places that we could drag people like you off to.
Books that are *LITERLARY* banned not like the U.S. where you can't get them in a library it's illegal for them to be imported and sold here
All countries have bans imposed on various things at various times. Remember *Prohibition* in the states?
The United States has more research done on medicine. Granted, it _is_ ten times the size of Canada. All in, Canada is one of the countries at the forefront of medical research.
Year after year Canada is named the best country in the world in which to live. How the fuck can you manage to find so many problems with it?
Not to rain on your little parade, but Microsoft is not the richest company in the world. If I recall correctly their revenues are approximately $30B. Compare this to say Ford or GM with around $150-170B. In fact, if I recall correctly, Microsoft is only around the 100 mark on the Fortune 500 list in terms of revenue. In terms of pure profit, Microsoft is higher up in the list, but it still has a ways to go.
And of course, (as I recall) the Fortune 500 is only for American companies. Figure in some Japanese, Russian, Chinese, or European companies and Microft sinks still lower.
Let us start with that whole population growth thing that you are so hung up from. Yes, I am fully aware that the overall population over the course of Soviet history was neutral, and that at times the growth was indeed neutral. At the outbreak of WW1 the population of Russia was estimated at 160 million; in 1991 the population was approximately 160 million. Compare this to the states where the population went from approximately 120 million to 270 million over the same period.
However, your claim is that the state of the population is a direct result of Communism. I would argue that the state of population was determined by extraordinary circumstances beyond the scope of the economic model of the country, and the continued high growth despite the lack population growth merely serves to further promote the effectiveness of communism. By far the most significant decline in the population was WW2 which claimed an official count of 25 million soviet citizens, and historians estimate the number could be as high as 50 millionn.
The point you make about the starvation in 1921 is moot. AS you may recall there was a war raging in Russia at time, including the south-eastern / Ukrainian areas of Russia. Considering that the prime agriculture lands that provided the lion's share of food both in pre-soviet and soviet Russia was in turmoil at the time, it would have been hard, if not impossible to get the right amount of food to where it was needed, regardless of the ecnomic or political model of the country.
And let us not forget the countless numbers of civilians that died as a direct result of the fighting. A war, where the white army was financed almost exlusively by the U.S. and Britain, and a significant portion of the army were non-Russians.
The 1932-1933 famine was indeed a fault of the government. However, as you yourself said it was caused for political reasons. The famines were not caused because of a fault in communism, but beacuse of vindictive and cruel dictator. Dictatorships are unique to communisn
As you may recall, Russia was not the only nation that treated with Hitler. Remember the Vichy government in France which collaborated with the Nazis. Remember the British government that advocated and adopted the policy of appeasement with Germany, not to mention the high-ranking nobility and politicians who either advocated peace talks with Germany, or who met secretly to discuss peace. Remember how the U.S. also adopted a policy of non-aggression towards Germany for the first two years of the war.
And yes, as you say Soviet Union suffered devestating losses in WW2. And yes, the Russian army collapsed against the German enslaught. But so did the Polish armies, the British armies in North Africa, and the French army. Also, note that at the outbreak of war, France had the largest standing army in Europe; larger than the Russian army, and larger than the German army.
And just little tidbit of information. The Trans-Siberian railway was a project of the csarist government. It was completed in 1905, and it was, and still is, used. It ferried troops and supplies during the Russo-Japanese war, during the civil war, and during WW2. Not to mention the millions of civilians it transported during peace-time, as it was eastern Russia's only major practical means of transportation.
And just who are you to condemn the prision populations of the Soviet Union. The U.S. has 500,000 people in jail on drug offences along, contrast that with the European Union which has 350,000 people in jail in total. That's despite the fact the European Union has a total population 100 million greater than the U.S..
The Soviet Union used slave labour. So did czarist
Russia, I fail to see your point. Slave labour was used in the U.S. as well.
You've spent a lot of time pointing out troubles that were present during the period that the Communists were in power. However, you have not shown how these are a result of communism. The problems you have cited are either caused by factors beyond the control of any government, or caused on the whim of dictator. None of them are a result of failures of communism.
It appears that you've read a book or two. The second stop is use your intellectual abilities to form your educated opinions from what you've read.
Socialists are not all power-mongers in the same that capitalists aren't aren't all evil men bent on ripping off the population. However, you only have to look at the countries in Africa and the middle east that are much farther right than the U.S. will ever and take note that these countries are all either dictarships, monarchies, or controlled by all powerfull businesses. Socialism is about doing what is best for the population, and it works, look at Soviet Russia.
Just to counter what you're about to think, yes Soviet Russia was years behind the U.S. in 1991 in terms of economy and political freedoms. However, in 1917 Russia was centuries behind. In those 75 years that the Soviets were in power, Russia achieved uninterrupted economic growth (at an overall rate higher than the
U.S.), citizens obtained much higher degrees of rights and freedoms, and what was once the intellectual back-water of Europe is now one the most highly educated populations in Europe.
It all boils down to one thing: socialism is about what is best for the people, capitalism is about what is best for the corporation. Think seriously about that before stating your uneducated opinion.
Yet another idiot totally clueless about the concept of democracy. Here's a quick little lesson.
i) Democracies are ruled by the people
ii) The US has 300 million people. If each person opens their mouth to yap then we get perfect anarchy.
iii) If 100 people, or 1000 people, or some such reasonable amount of people open their mouths to yap then actual work can get done.
iv) Therefore 300 million people voluntarily surrender their rights to speak by allowing an elected official to speak for them.
v) If the elected officials doesn't do what you like then TOUGH FUCKING LUCK. Go vote again.
And one more little educational tidbit:
i) The US has 300 million people. Fact is that requires a pretty big central government to look after. Sure you might want everything to be centralized locally, but wouldn't that destroy the concept of the nation.
Yes, it's a democracy, however many Americans seem to have hard time realizing that a third-world country can be a democracy, or that a country can be a democracy without requiring 'Democratic' and 'Republic' parties.
Of course the majority of Americans think that Communism is the opposite of democracy. Communist countries can dictatorships, or feudal societies, or even *gasp* democracies. Many Americans don't even realize that the USSR was a democracy.
I'm sorry, but unless you actually complete a transaction to buy illicit substances it is not illegal. Just searching for drugs is not in and of itself illegal.
Now I'm no expert no the American Constitution (In fact I'm Canadian), but I believe that the constitution grants the right for 'free speach'. I do not recall it granting 'anonymous free speach'. I'm quite possibly wrong on that point, however, I feel quite strongly that someone who says something should be able to stand behind their statements. If you are unwilling to back up your statements and put your name to them then the statements are useless.
I honestly to not understand the large amount of panic over the Carnivore system. So far as I am aware, you will only be tracked if you are suspect to criminal activities, in much the same way as more traditional wire taps.
If you are genuinely worried about what impact Carnivore will have on you, then maybe it is time YOU SHOULD STOP DOING WHATEVER ILLEGAL OR QUASI-ILLEGAL ACTIVITES you are currently engaged. If aren't engaged in said activities then why on Earth are you worring???
It is theft. The courts agreed that the method that mp3.com was using to verify that people owned the cds was insufficient and so easily susceptible to fraud as to render useless.
The agreed that fraud had indeed taken part on a large scale, and that mp3.com provided music to people who didn't own a copy of the cd.
We have plenty of labor in the United States and we don't really need anymore
The last I heard, the unemployment rate in the US is hovering around 3%. Now, as any economist (or economist to be) could tell you, 3% unemployment == full employment. It is unrealistic, and probably near impossible, to get a lower rate. As it is, such a low inflation rate will cause inflation rates to increase, and that isn't necessarily a good thing. Bringing in workers from other countries helps alleviate the demand for workers and prevent inflation from creeping up.
No, his point is perfectly valid for both the Sony and BMG. Sony is doing it by themselves, and since they own the copyright to the music they can do anything they.
Let's assume the company building the database for BMG will act as a retailer. Then the company building the 'music locker'/database for BMG does not own the copyrights, however, BMG has given permission to the company to build the system. Since the company has been given permission by BMG it doesn't matter that they don't actually own the copyright. This is the same as someone lending something to someone else.
The other scenario involving the third party is that it isn't acting as the retailer/operator for the database, but has been contracted by BMG to build the database. Once the database has been finished BMG would run the operation. This case would be similar to the Sony case.
MP3.com was redistributing the music with the express permission to the record labels, and without owning the copyrights. In my view, and that of the courts, it was blatant theft.
Slashdot Mirror
And lets extend your logic a bit further:
I'm no physicist or astro-physicist, but from what I've read, the presence of 'worm-holes' has been 100% confirmed. The problem is however, that the worm-holes are too small to actually do anything. However, again, I believe that it has been confirmed that anti-matter can be used to expand worm-holes, and anti-can be produced at least in minute quantities. So get ready to dismiss the unknown quite so quickly.
But, the population is declining, and demand isn't declining, its growth is just slowing slowing. The computer retailers will still sell enough computers to sustain themselves. However instead of selling 3M one year and 6M the next year, they'll be selling 3M one year and 3,050,000 the next year. As long as the companies are currently profitable they'll stay profitable.
But, the population of say the US is continuously growing. And since the population will be most likely growing forever, the market for computers will most likely grow forever.
I don't see a peaceful end to this, because there is a lot of money at stake, and whenever there is money, there is also a rabid foaming-at-the-mouth mob of greedy bastards willing to trample anybody in their way to get at it.
Now, in a properly socialist country music would indeed belong to the people. Music would be distibuted free or at cost, without millionaire artists and execs.
However, at this moment the West is a capitalist society where everyone has a right to better themselves at the expense of others. Therefore, the RIAA has every right to make money however they can, and if you try circumventing their rules then it just makes you a thieve and as equally greedy. Not to mention lazy.
And in the eyes of parents and adults, a teenager is still considered a child.
It's not bad if everyone shares the risk equally.
And how do you determine the equality of risk. Based solely on a genetic test for an extremely small subset of possible genetic risks? The fact is there is such a large myriad of possible risks for each person that merely being high risk in one area is insufficient to use as base to determine overall risk. Bob might have a high risk of heart attack, but Joe might have a higher risk of crashing his car, Jane might have a higher risk of falling off a cliff in the Himalayas, and Bill might have a higher risk of being eaten by a shark.
However, it is impossible to measure all risks a person faces over the entire duration of their lives. And therefore even more impossible to compare the risks that different people face. Without an accurate indicator of the total risk a person faces, any small indicator of risk is useless. It may be higher than that of another person, or the person may have other risks that make the first one negligible.
Insurance is about pooling risks. The insurance entity just have to hope that statistically everything will eventually even out.
However, much as I despise capitalism, I do recognize that most of the world is capitalist, and that therefore insurance companies have legal rights to look out for their own best interest. Regardless of whether we agree with with the rules or whether the rules benefit the people, we must follow the rules and allow the insurance companies to operate as they see fit. By selectively disobeying rules we only drift towards anarchy.
The obvious solution to that problem is to eliminate government programs of insurance
The ideal and necessary solution would be to replace the private insurance companies with government insurance. The U.S. has the highest per capita health care/insurance spending in the world, it also has the largest private health care/insurance industry. Coincidence? All though a large beaurocracy may be inefficient, it is no more inefficient then a large company. In addition a government institution is run in order to benefit the people, as opposed to benefitting itself.
For the most part people are allowed to speak without permission from the authorities, and this is quite consistent with a peaceful society. A society in which people arbitrarily silence each other with force is not peaceful. Even if this result is acheived through a democratic process.
I never said stifle people by force. However, having 300 million make an intelligent vote on a bill to pass before the commons/congress/knesset is not practical.
And which people are these? Our commie overlords?
They are the democratically elected officials as far as I know. When did this surrender take place? Or do you have a different definition of "voluntary" than everyone else does?
When you go to the ballot box you give the person you are voting for permission to speak on your behalf and to represent you. If you do not wish to surrendor your voice to them, then you are perfectly free to run by yourself.
This is a good point about democracy - if you are wronged by the government, you don't necessarily have any recourse, other than the ballot, which is totally ineffecual.
Let me put a capitalist pig spin on this idea to make easier for you to understand. Say you have voting shares in a company. You might allow some to act as your proxy and vote on your behalf. However if the person acting for you does something you don't approve of, then it is you tough luck. Next time either do it yourself or pay more attention to who you let represent itself.
Typically communists seek to over-politicize every aspect of life; Stalin allowed political concerns to determine which people should be officers.
So people appointed to various offices for political reasons is unique to communist countries is unique? Not the last time that I checked.
Wrong. The civil war was over by 1921. (Actually, for all practical purposes the civil war was over by the end of 1920.) Having defeated the whites and the democratic socialists the bolsheviks turned to an even more persistent source of opposition: the peasantry. The bolsheviks diverted considerable military manpower and equipment to suppressing local uprisings even during the civil war. This includes the use of heavy artillery and warplanes against villages which violently resisted collectivization
Did I say the extended past 1921. The red armies committed grave attrocities against civilian populations. So did the white armies backed by western governments, particularily in the portion of the war fought in eastern Russia. The Kolchak regime in Siberia was funded, supplied, and armed by the U.S. and Britain. Without foreign support the government would never have lasted as long as it did. The British equiped white armies in Estonia. Arcangel and Murmansk were held by the British. Denikin had large numbers of foreign troops. Without backing from the west the civil war would have lasted at most months. And that my friend is a fact you might want to look up.
And by the way, the Ukraine is not a region of Russia. When Moscow ruled over the Ukranians it resulted in great misery. BTW, have you ever known a Ukranian or someone of Ukranian descent (especially a Ukranian Jew)? If so, what do they think about your enthusiastic defense of the USSR?
The Ukraine is not a part of Russia proper. It was, however, the birthplace of Russia (remember Kiev), and for the large part of the last 1100 years it has been under Russian control.
Yes, and at least I'm not defending this practice, like you are!
Did I ever speak in the defense of labour camps? Your statement was that communism is evil because Russia had labour camps. My argument wasn't to show that the Soviet government was justified, just that other nations are no less guilty.
Let's not also forget the institutionalized torture, the practice of raping daughters and wives of prisoners in front of them, the systematic imprisonment or relocation of innocent families of victims of the NKVD/KGB
Note carefully that I am not condemning this practice. However, previous to Cheka/NKVD/KGB czarist Russia had a long and happy history of secret police involved in the practice of terror and abuse. To blame the Cheka/NKVD/KGB on communism is absurd. Blame it instead on peculiarities of Russian leadership.
The fact is that Russian was extremely backwards before the communists came to power. Despite tremendous hurdles they were forced to overcome, they accomplished many things that enabled Russia to progress. What was once largely an uneducated population is now of the most highly educated in the world, the industrial revolution took full grip under communism, science, arts, and culture flourished.
The major point that you seem hung up is that democracy and communism are mutually exclusive. That has been one of the most successful propaganda campaigns of all time. You are aware that Soviet Russia was in fact a democracy? It is merely a coincidence that the Bolsheviks outlawed other parties. Otherwise, Soviet Russia would have been every bit as democratic as the U.S. or Canada. All the short-falls of Soviet Russia that you have pointed out are short-falls of dictatorships not communism. I sure as hell don't want to live under a dictatorship, but to me a democratic communist government is as close to utopian as it gets.
BR From a base point of view it comes down to who you want to run things. An entity looking out solely for itself or an entity looking out for the best needs of everyone. Doesn't seem to hard for me.
And it would be called a gulag. That's where soviet communists put people who disagreed with them.
I'm well aware of what a gulag is. However, why do you continuously insist in bringing up points to knock Russia, when those points are equally valid anywhere else in the world, for any form of government.
You sure do like employing this type of argument. What it amounts to is this: the US once made the horrible mistake of banning alcohol, so now that the barn door's open, why not just cause more trouble banning other stuff?
I am not in favour of prohibition, and am not attempting to defend it, but am trying to point out to the poster that Canada is not the only nation in world that has imposed various restrictions and should not be condemned on that point.
Most (around 99%) of the drugs developed in the US are developed by private, for-profit, capitalist pig-dog pharmaceutical companies. You must be disappointed we still haven't appointed a Commissar of Medicine to nationalize them.
And in Soviet Russia drug funding was done by government, and in European countries and Canada it is largely a mix of government and private funding. Does the fact that it is 99% privately funded in the U.S. make it any better? No. Then why bring it up.
I am truly happy for you that the one country you happen to live in is the best one on the planet.
That's not my opinion, that's opinion of the U.N.. Personally, I plan in moving to Europe within a couple of years. Either Britain, Germany, or Russia.
And you my friend are an embarrasement to Canadians. In a perfect world there would be special places that we could drag people like you off to.
Books that are *LITERLARY* banned not like the U.S. where you can't get them in a library it's illegal for them to be imported and sold here
All countries have bans imposed on various things at various times. Remember *Prohibition* in the states?
The United States has more research done on medicine. Granted, it _is_ ten times the size of Canada. All in, Canada is one of the countries at the forefront of medical research.
Year after year Canada is named the best country in the world in which to live. How the fuck can you manage to find so many problems with it?
Not to rain on your little parade, but Microsoft is not the richest company in the world. If I recall correctly their revenues are approximately $30B. Compare this to say Ford or GM with around $150-170B. In fact, if I recall correctly, Microsoft is only around the 100 mark on the Fortune 500 list in terms of revenue. In terms of pure profit, Microsoft is higher up in the list, but it still has a ways to go.
And of course, (as I recall) the Fortune 500 is only for American companies. Figure in some Japanese, Russian, Chinese, or European companies and Microft sinks still lower.
Well, well, well, where to start?
Let us start with that whole population growth thing that you are so hung up from. Yes, I am fully aware that the overall population over the course of Soviet history was neutral, and that at times the growth was indeed neutral. At the outbreak of WW1 the population of Russia was estimated at 160 million; in 1991 the population was approximately 160 million. Compare this to the states where the population went from approximately 120 million to 270 million over the same period.
However, your claim is that the state of the population is a direct result of Communism. I would argue that the state of population was determined by extraordinary circumstances beyond the scope of the economic model of the country, and the continued high growth despite the lack population growth merely serves to further promote the effectiveness of communism. By far the most significant decline in the population was WW2 which claimed an official count of 25 million soviet citizens, and historians estimate the number could be as high as 50 millionn.
The point you make about the starvation in 1921 is moot. AS you may recall there was a war raging in Russia at time, including the south-eastern / Ukrainian areas of Russia. Considering that the prime agriculture lands that provided the lion's share of food both in pre-soviet and soviet Russia was in turmoil at the time, it would have been hard, if not impossible to get the right amount of food to where it was needed, regardless of the ecnomic or political model of the country. And let us not forget the countless numbers of civilians that died as a direct result of the fighting. A war, where the white army was financed almost exlusively by the U.S. and Britain, and a significant portion of the army were non-Russians.
The 1932-1933 famine was indeed a fault of the government. However, as you yourself said it was caused for political reasons. The famines were not caused because of a fault in communism, but beacuse of vindictive and cruel dictator. Dictatorships are unique to communisn
As you may recall, Russia was not the only nation that treated with Hitler. Remember the Vichy government in France which collaborated with the Nazis. Remember the British government that advocated and adopted the policy of appeasement with Germany, not to mention the high-ranking nobility and politicians who either advocated peace talks with Germany, or who met secretly to discuss peace. Remember how the U.S. also adopted a policy of non-aggression towards Germany for the first two years of the war.
And yes, as you say Soviet Union suffered devestating losses in WW2. And yes, the Russian army collapsed against the German enslaught. But so did the Polish armies, the British armies in North Africa, and the French army. Also, note that at the outbreak of war, France had the largest standing army in Europe; larger than the Russian army, and larger than the German army.
And just little tidbit of information. The Trans-Siberian railway was a project of the csarist government. It was completed in 1905, and it was, and still is, used. It ferried troops and supplies during the Russo-Japanese war, during the civil war, and during WW2. Not to mention the millions of civilians it transported during peace-time, as it was eastern Russia's only major practical means of transportation.
And just who are you to condemn the prision populations of the Soviet Union. The U.S. has 500,000 people in jail on drug offences along, contrast that with the European Union which has 350,000 people in jail in total. That's despite the fact the European Union has a total population 100 million greater than the U.S..
The Soviet Union used slave labour. So did czarist Russia, I fail to see your point. Slave labour was used in the U.S. as well.
You've spent a lot of time pointing out troubles that were present during the period that the Communists were in power. However, you have not shown how these are a result of communism. The problems you have cited are either caused by factors beyond the control of any government, or caused on the whim of dictator. None of them are a result of failures of communism.
It appears that you've read a book or two. The second stop is use your intellectual abilities to form your educated opinions from what you've read.
Socialists are not all power-mongers in the same that capitalists aren't aren't all evil men bent on ripping off the population. However, you only have to look at the countries in Africa and the middle east that are much farther right than the U.S. will ever and take note that these countries are all either dictarships, monarchies, or controlled by all powerfull businesses. Socialism is about doing what is best for the population, and it works, look at Soviet Russia.
Just to counter what you're about to think, yes Soviet Russia was years behind the U.S. in 1991 in terms of economy and political freedoms. However, in 1917 Russia was centuries behind. In those 75 years that the Soviets were in power, Russia achieved uninterrupted economic growth (at an overall rate higher than the U.S.), citizens obtained much higher degrees of rights and freedoms, and what was once the intellectual back-water of Europe is now one the most highly educated populations in Europe.
It all boils down to one thing: socialism is about what is best for the people, capitalism is about what is best for the corporation. Think seriously about that before stating your uneducated opinion.
I wouldn't mock Ross Perot if I were you. Remember that he did make a large part of his fortune founding EDS Systemhouse. He's a pretty smart person.
Yet another idiot totally clueless about the concept of democracy. Here's a quick little lesson.
i) Democracies are ruled by the people
ii) The US has 300 million people. If each person opens their mouth to yap then we get perfect anarchy.
iii) If 100 people, or 1000 people, or some such reasonable amount of people open their mouths to yap then actual work can get done.
iv) Therefore 300 million people voluntarily surrender their rights to speak by allowing an elected official to speak for them.
v) If the elected officials doesn't do what you like then TOUGH FUCKING LUCK. Go vote again.
And one more little educational tidbit:
i) The US has 300 million people. Fact is that requires a pretty big central government to look after. Sure you might want everything to be centralized locally, but wouldn't that destroy the concept of the nation.
Yes, it's a democracy, however many Americans seem to have hard time realizing that a third-world country can be a democracy, or that a country can be a democracy without requiring 'Democratic' and 'Republic' parties.
Of course the majority of Americans think that Communism is the opposite of democracy. Communist countries can dictatorships, or feudal societies, or even *gasp* democracies. Many Americans don't even realize that the USSR was a democracy.
What a bloody twit. That is opinion not fact. And you bloody egotistical Americans wonder why you're despised and jeered throughout the world.
Of course, anyone unsophisticated enough to drink beer out of a can has a skull thick enough to withstand the pain anyways ;)
I'm sorry, but unless you actually complete a transaction to buy illicit substances it is not illegal. Just searching for drugs is not in and of itself illegal.
Now I'm no expert no the American Constitution (In fact I'm Canadian), but I believe that the constitution grants the right for 'free speach'. I do not recall it granting 'anonymous free speach'. I'm quite possibly wrong on that point, however, I feel quite strongly that someone who says something should be able to stand behind their statements. If you are unwilling to back up your statements and put your name to them then the statements are useless.
I honestly to not understand the large amount of panic over the Carnivore system. So far as I am aware, you will only be tracked if you are suspect to criminal activities, in much the same way as more traditional wire taps.
If you are genuinely worried about what impact Carnivore will have on you, then maybe it is time YOU SHOULD STOP DOING WHATEVER ILLEGAL OR QUASI-ILLEGAL ACTIVITES you are currently engaged. If aren't engaged in said activities then why on Earth are you worring???
It is theft. The courts agreed that the method that mp3.com was using to verify that people owned the cds was insufficient and so easily susceptible to fraud as to render useless. The agreed that fraud had indeed taken part on a large scale, and that mp3.com provided music to people who didn't own a copy of the cd.
We have plenty of labor in the United States and we don't really need anymore
The last I heard, the unemployment rate in the US is hovering around 3%. Now, as any economist (or economist to be) could tell you, 3% unemployment == full employment. It is unrealistic, and probably near impossible, to get a lower rate. As it is, such a low inflation rate will cause inflation rates to increase, and that isn't necessarily a good thing. Bringing in workers from other countries helps alleviate the demand for workers and prevent inflation from creeping up.
No, his point is perfectly valid for both the Sony and BMG. Sony is doing it by themselves, and since they own the copyright to the music they can do anything they. Let's assume the company building the database for BMG will act as a retailer. Then the company building the 'music locker'/database for BMG does not own the copyrights, however, BMG has given permission to the company to build the system. Since the company has been given permission by BMG it doesn't matter that they don't actually own the copyright. This is the same as someone lending something to someone else. The other scenario involving the third party is that it isn't acting as the retailer/operator for the database, but has been contracted by BMG to build the database. Once the database has been finished BMG would run the operation. This case would be similar to the Sony case. MP3.com was redistributing the music with the express permission to the record labels, and without owning the copyrights. In my view, and that of the courts, it was blatant theft.