Yeah, but that was only once... and he got a ton of bashing from the commentors. A lesson to everyone on k5 who didn't bother voting... -Chris Andreasen
Try this:
after compiling, issue the following command: rm -f `find . | grep -v Makefile`
(make sure you use the correct quotes!)
this will delete everything in the current directory and all subdirectories except for the Makefiles. Now you can just tar the directory up and archive it in an uninstall directory or something... -Chris Andreasen
In American Pie, the computers that everyone uses for videoconferencing look like Macs, but if you look closely you'll see that someone just made a screen capture of a Mac desktop and used it as the background. The titlebars have an ugly set of Amiga-like pixmaps in the minimize/maximize/etc. button, but the windows have an equally ugly Motif-like resize border. All of the window decorations have a hideous looking beige-ish color to them. I think, although I'm not sure, that it was an Irix box that they were using (I'm judging based on a Kaleidoscope theme named "Irix" that looked exactly like that, so it could be a Mac after all, although I don't see why they would have bothered to do that). -Chris Andreasen
also remember who bailed you and most of europe out of during ww2. The Soviets. Why is it that nearly every American seems to think that American soldiers were the sole reason that Germany lost the war? No one ever seems to remember that there was an eastern front, or that it was the Soviets that captured the Nazi Headquarters in Berlin, or that 20 million Russians died fighting in WWII (they took more casualties than every other country combined!). If Hitler had never attacked the Soviet Union and the USSR remained neutral, I doubt we ever could have even gotten our troops into Europe for any extensive period of time! -Chris Andreasen
The pretty young girl turned to him and said "I'm a boy!" The answer is at the bottom of this year's (well, last year's now) chess puzzle. -Chris Andreasen
Re:Congratulations - You failed Engish101 !
on
YETI@Home
·
· Score: 1
"You're" is a contraction - it means "you are." The phrase "... interrupt you are daily computer usage..." makes no sense. -Chris Andreasen
I admit that I don't own a copy of Corel to back this up, and I don't remember where I read it (probably on LinuxWorld.org or some ZDNet article) but I remember reading somewhere that Corel bundles the native WordPerfect Linux binary and the MS-Windows binaries for its other products and uses Wine to run them. -Chris Andreasen
I may be wrong (I don't have a copy of 1984 handy), but I remember it saying somewhere that Airstrip One (the UK) had become a territory of what was the US. I think this was stated in one of the excerpts from the forbidden manuscript whose specific name I can't remember. Just another thought to ponder over... -Chris Andreasen
Who says you have to work if you live in a Communist society? I don't think anyone would care if you didn't - the society just won't pay you. It's the same as in a Capitalist society. And just to clarify: Socialist China and the USSR do NOT qualify as true Communist societies. -Chris Andreasen
Okay, I admit that I am not a fan of the original series (heck, I was born long after its cancellation), but it seems to me that the appeal was in the almost utopian view of the future in comparison to current issues. It portrayed an environment in which members of several different races and both genders could effectively work together (alongside their perfectly refined technology) to further human (and other miscellaneous species) knowledge and advancement. It was, in essence, the ideal setting to escape from the turbulent times. The times, however, have changed since then. A show about conflict in a near-utopia (in comparison to our time) just isn't as exciting as it once might have been, not only because all of the plots are just rehash, but also because we are a lot closer to living in that same type of setting in real life than back during TOS's running. What I think they should do if the producers want to keep running the Star Trek theme is to dispose of the near-utopian environment and replace it with one that the current generation can relate to more and view with the same hope and aspiration that the original series gave. For instance: the Federation is overthrown... society must re-create itself, not only on Earth but on other planets as well. The technology is still present, but no longer the focus (read: distraction) and human relationship and societal development because the central issue. Oh well, just me two cents... -Chris Andreasen
And if that weren't enough, at some point our own Sun will supernova, and when this occurs, human life on earth will be destroyed. Actually, long before the Sun goes Nova, it will swell up into a Red Giant, and when that happens its size will be so large that it will swallow up Mercury, Venus, Earth and possibly Mars as well. So the Earth will be destroyed by the Sun long before it explodes. -Chris Andreasen
This isn't a reply to the parent message, but instead a reply to the parent message's replies. If find it easier to just say this once than to reply individually to all of them.
Now, I don't remember whether he's a socialist, a communist, or what, but I know he's ONE of those things, and it sure ain't Democracy. By Marx's definition, a true Communist society can't exist without Democracy, seeing as how there isn't any government in a true Communist society and the people rule themselves. This, of course, is a bit too utopian, which is why you don't see any true Communist societies. What you see instead is the totalitarian Leninist/Stalinist states (i.e.: Soviet Union) and Social Democrat states (i.e.: the majority present-day Europe).
while every country that has even remotely adopted Marxist dogma is now deep in poverty. and In case you didn't notice, socialism has now proven itself to be a failure in most areas of the world. The majority of Europe is Socialist. Is France a failure? Is Sweden a failure? Is Germany a failure?
My guess is that it won't -- for the same reason that they aren't wealthy in the first place -- they refuse to work for and earn it.
Since when does hard work equate with being wealthy in our society? My Grandfather worked as a mason for most of his life - which I consider fairly laborous work - and he didn't die rich. Now compare some upstart twenty-something year-olds that make a web portal and become millionaires overnight.
I can't believe how many people I've heard compare Communism/Socialism and Democracy, thinking the two are incompatible. Communism and Socialism are economic states! Democracy is a governmental state! The U.S. is a Capitalist Republic, whereas the Soviet Union was a Socialist Dictatorship. There is nothing that says you can't have a Socialist Democracy or Capitalist Dictatorship. Another thing that really erks me is when I see kids at school (or even adults) talking about how much they love living in a democracy. The U.S. is a Republic. We democratically elect people to rule over us. We as citizens don't have say in government decision, we just choose who does say (and the polls tend to be biased towards a selection of only two or three people). If anyone is actually interested, here's the websites for the U.S. Communist Party and the U.S. Socialist Party. You'll notice neither of them talk about destroying the current free-market system everyone here appears to be enjoying, but instead more realistic goals like increasing Union presence, equal hourly pay according to job (i.e.: how much labor is required to effectively work in this field), etc. -Chris Andreasen
Real communism actually is a good thing, but doesn't work with humans. Communism most definately can work with humans, just not really large groups (ie: large cities, states, countries, etc.). If you isolated forty people on a desert island and came back in couple of years, you would probably see a very communist lifestyle among the island's residents. A communist economy is give-what-you-can-take-what-you-need system, and I don't think that can exist unless the population is a small, tightly-knit community. A large population is just incapable of the level of communication that a small group can have, and thus people get would left out of the major decisions and there would be endless bickering/feuding.
I can see your point, though. A communist system can crumble into dystopia when corruption is present (I think Stalin is a fairly good example, even though the USSR didn't have a true communist economy). Having a large population increases the chance that there will be people that abuse the system. But now that I think about, it wasn't intended that in capitalist economy 5% of the people would control 95% of the wealth, as seen here in the US. Straying slightly from the subject, though: why is it that whenever discussions on communism in slashdot spur up, it never has anything to do with the subject that the person who mentions communism is talking about.
There will be plenty of people who would choose certain skins for the sake of humor. I remember something from the book SnowCrash about how certain rules had to be added restricting avatars to human form because some people decided to walk around as giant penises or something like that.
Wait a sec... In your post you said both "WinNT is just as secure, if not more secure, than most Unix systems." and "I personally think that BO is dumb. Designing this program to comprimise a system that isn't designed to be secure is rediculous." Is it just me or do your statements conflict with one another?
Re:Free software is still capitalistic
on
RMS Responds
·
· Score: 1
The basic notion of capitalism is, you can't make money without some sort of exchange with someone, and that person probably got something they wanted out of it too, which means the more money gets made, the better things get.
The basic notion capitalism isn't about exchanging goods and services for money/other goods and services, its about private ownership of capital. See a previous post of mine. No single person or group owns the rights to a particular free software product. Once the source is out, it belongs to everyone. By your definition of capitalism, though, I still don't see the logic of your argument. You say free software is capitalistic, and then discuss how goods/services are exchanged for money in capitalist systems, but what does free software have to do with making money? If you post some great new program on the internet, people may be compelled to improve it and give the changes back to the community, but that doesn't involve exchanging anything. You're saying that if anyone wants to use this product, they're free to do so, and if you want to improve it they're free to do that as well. Any capital received as a result of creating this product is purely charity.
Free software is about aiming for a bigger pie, which is fine capitalism, too. Capitalism doesn't have to be about competition; cooperation is just as good a way to make a buck and you're more likely to like what you see in the mirror in the morning, too.
What does aiming for improvement have to do with anything? Yes, both free products and commercial products tend to aim for improvement, but that doesn't mean that these two concepts are the same. And again, free software has nothing to do with making money.
You can change the resolutions on the fly with X. Use Ctrl+Alt+Plus and Ctrl+Alt+Minus (Plus and Minus on the keypad, that is). You just can't change resolution on the fly. Windows 95 couldn't either. You had to reboot. At least with X you only had to shutdown the X server, not do a complete reboot. I don't know if that's changed since Win98, since I don't use it.
Oops... I meant you can't change color depth on the fly. Sorry.
You can change the resolutions on the fly with X. Use Ctrl+Alt+Plus and Ctrl+Alt+Minus (Plus and Minus on the keypad, that is). You just can't change resolution on the fly. Windows 95 couldn't either. You had to reboot. At least with X you only had to shutdown the X server, not do a complete reboot. I don't know if that's changed since Win98, since I don't use it.
I think the relation between software and economic systems that so often pops up here on Slashdot is comparing ownership of software to ownership of capital. Capital is privately owned in a capitalist system. However, the economic system to which Open-Source Software is most commonly compared to is communism, not socialism. All property is collectively owned in a communist state, but owned by the government in a socialist state.
"Evolution and natural selection" aren't always present in a capitalist system. Take Windows for example (keeping with anti-MS attitude so prevalent on Slashdot). Natural selection involves survival of the fittest, and if that were the case the Amiga or OS/2 would have stomped out Windows long ago. And as for evolution, you would expect Windows to have proper preemptive multitasking and protected memory management by now, wouldn't you? Every other OS seems to have evolved to that stage.
Webster's dictionary defines Socialism and Capitalism as:
Socialism: 1: Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. 2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property. b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state. 3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between captialism and communism and distinguished by unequal distributions of goods and pay according to work done.
Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate of capital goods, by investments determined by private decisions rather than by state control, and by prices, production, and distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.
Both Socialism and Capitalism are economic systems. The difference between them is that in a capitalist system capital is owned privately, whereas capital is owned by the state in a socialist economy. If a country owns a factory, that doesn't make them capitalist, it means they're industrialized. I hope this clears any confusion on the matter.
Metcalfe said: OK, communism is too harsh on Linux. Lenin too harsh on Torvalds. strredwolf said: It's actually Socialism, not communism (which the two get so mixed up it's suprizing you even mention it). Socialism, by Karl Marx, dictates that everyone, not the government (that's Communism), owns everything. Marx also states that it will be a slow progression into Socialism. Communism got screwed up by Lenin et al trying to speed things up. Guess what Russia got into now?
You have Communism and Socialism mixed up. Socialism is the transition point from capitalism to Communism. Communism is the point in Marxist ideology at which a central government is no longer needed to handle the distribution of goods and services.
Re:communism = evil | GNU =! evil
on
BSD vs GPL
·
· Score: 2
Communism == evil? Are you referring to the Soviet Union's/China's socialist dictatorships, or real Marxist Communism? The entire basis of communism is to have an economic system in which the people share in the profits of their labor. Sharing is evil? Notice how I said economic system. Communism is not a form of government. The premise behind it is that the people are capable of governing themselves, therefore a true communism cannot really exist without being democratic.
Communism is just a nice dream that never works; it is bad, but a nice thought.
Communism has never been implemented on a large scale. The only real communist societies that ever been implemented are small "Utopian" societies, many of which failed because the people became greedy. The socialist society created in Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution helped it immensely, though. The literacy rate soared and the country quickly changed from one of the word's most backwards nations to one the world's most industrialized. Then Stalin came to power and suddenly communism was considered evil because of one man's ruthlessness.
Communistic system murdered incredible amounts of humans in russia and china and are totally bloated and corrupted.
The communist (socialist, really) system in China and the Soviet Union didn't murder millions of people, it was the dictatorship.
Sorry if it seems like I'm nitpicking, but I greatly respect the communist ideals and hate it when people misinterpret them. I'm sure everyone on Slashdot hates the fact that the word "Hacker" has gotten a bad name because it became associated with something that doesn't at all relate to the original defintion. Same thing here.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but that was only once... and he got a ton of bashing from the commentors. A lesson to everyone on k5 who didn't bother voting...
-Chris Andreasen
Try this:
after compiling, issue the following command:
rm -f `find . | grep -v Makefile`
(make sure you use the correct quotes!)
this will delete everything in the current directory and all subdirectories except for the Makefiles. Now you can just tar the directory up and archive it in an uninstall directory or something...
-Chris Andreasen
In American Pie, the computers that everyone uses for videoconferencing look like Macs, but if you look closely you'll see that someone just made a screen capture of a Mac desktop and used it as the background. The titlebars have an ugly set of Amiga-like pixmaps in the minimize/maximize/etc. button, but the windows have an equally ugly Motif-like resize border. All of the window decorations have a hideous looking beige-ish color to them. I think, although I'm not sure, that it was an Irix box that they were using (I'm judging based on a Kaleidoscope theme named "Irix" that looked exactly like that, so it could be a Mac after all, although I don't see why they would have bothered to do that).
-Chris Andreasen
also remember who bailed you and most of europe out of during ww2.
The Soviets.
Why is it that nearly every American seems to think that American soldiers were the sole reason that Germany lost the war? No one ever seems to remember that there was an eastern front, or that it was the Soviets that captured the Nazi Headquarters in Berlin, or that 20 million Russians died fighting in WWII (they took more casualties than every other country combined!). If Hitler had never attacked the Soviet Union and the USSR remained neutral, I doubt we ever could have even gotten our troops into Europe for any extensive period of time!
-Chris Andreasen
The pretty young girl turned to him and said "I'm a boy!"
The answer is at the bottom of this year's (well, last year's now) chess puzzle.
-Chris Andreasen
"You're" is a contraction - it means "you are." The phrase "... interrupt you are daily computer usage ..." makes no sense.
-Chris Andreasen
I admit that I don't own a copy of Corel to back this up, and I don't remember where I read it (probably on LinuxWorld.org or some ZDNet article) but I remember reading somewhere that Corel bundles the native WordPerfect Linux binary and the MS-Windows binaries for its other products and uses Wine to run them.
-Chris Andreasen
I may be wrong (I don't have a copy of 1984 handy), but I remember it saying somewhere that Airstrip One (the UK) had become a territory of what was the US. I think this was stated in one of the excerpts from the forbidden manuscript whose specific name I can't remember.
Just another thought to ponder over...
-Chris Andreasen
Actually a true Communist state has no government at all - go read up on your Marx.
-Chris Andreasen
Who says you have to work if you live in a Communist society? I don't think anyone would care if you didn't - the society just won't pay you. It's the same as in a Capitalist society.
And just to clarify: Socialist China and the USSR do NOT qualify as true Communist societies.
-Chris Andreasen
Okay, I admit that I am not a fan of the original series (heck, I was born long after its cancellation), but it seems to me that the appeal was in the almost utopian view of the future in comparison to current issues. It portrayed an environment in which members of several different races and both genders could effectively work together (alongside their perfectly refined technology) to further human (and other miscellaneous species) knowledge and advancement. It was, in essence, the ideal setting to escape from the turbulent times.
The times, however, have changed since then. A show about conflict in a near-utopia (in comparison to our time) just isn't as exciting as it once might have been, not only because all of the plots are just rehash, but also because we are a lot closer to living in that same type of setting in real life than back during TOS's running.
What I think they should do if the producers want to keep running the Star Trek theme is to dispose of the near-utopian environment and replace it with one that the current generation can relate to more and view with the same hope and aspiration that the original series gave. For instance: the Federation is overthrown... society must re-create itself, not only on Earth but on other planets as well. The technology is still present, but no longer the focus (read: distraction) and human relationship and societal development because the central issue.
Oh well, just me two cents...
-Chris Andreasen
And if that weren't enough, at some point our own Sun will supernova, and when this occurs, human life on earth will be destroyed.
Actually, long before the Sun goes Nova, it will swell up into a Red Giant, and when that happens its size will be so large that it will swallow up Mercury, Venus, Earth and possibly Mars as well. So the Earth will be destroyed by the Sun long before it explodes.
-Chris Andreasen
You can find it at http://user.sgic.fi/~tml/gimp/win32/. If haven't played around with it much, but it seems fairly stable.
-Chris Andreasen
This isn't a reply to the parent message, but instead a reply to the parent message's replies. If find it easier to just say this once than to reply individually to all of them.
Now, I don't remember whether he's a socialist, a communist, or what, but I know he's ONE of those things, and it sure ain't Democracy.
By Marx's definition, a true Communist society can't exist without Democracy, seeing as how there isn't any government in a true Communist society and the people rule themselves. This, of course, is a bit too utopian, which is why you don't see any true Communist societies. What you see instead is the totalitarian Leninist/Stalinist states (i.e.: Soviet Union) and Social Democrat states (i.e.: the majority present-day Europe).
while every country that has even remotely adopted Marxist dogma is now deep in poverty.
and
In case you didn't notice, socialism has now proven itself to be a failure in most areas of the world.
The majority of Europe is Socialist. Is France a failure? Is Sweden a failure? Is Germany a failure?
My guess is that it won't -- for the same reason that they aren't wealthy in the first place -- they refuse to work for and earn it.
Since when does hard work equate with being wealthy in our society? My Grandfather worked as a mason for most of his life - which I consider fairly laborous work - and he didn't die rich. Now compare some upstart twenty-something year-olds that make a web portal and become millionaires overnight.
I can't believe how many people I've heard compare Communism/Socialism and Democracy, thinking the two are incompatible. Communism and Socialism are economic states! Democracy is a governmental state! The U.S. is a Capitalist Republic, whereas the Soviet Union was a Socialist Dictatorship. There is nothing that says you can't have a Socialist Democracy or Capitalist Dictatorship.
Another thing that really erks me is when I see kids at school (or even adults) talking about how much they love living in a democracy. The U.S. is a Republic. We democratically elect people to rule over us. We as citizens don't have say in government decision, we just choose who does say (and the polls tend to be biased towards a selection of only two or three people).
If anyone is actually interested, here's the websites for the U.S. Communist Party and the U.S. Socialist Party. You'll notice neither of them talk about destroying the current free-market system everyone here appears to be enjoying, but instead more realistic goals like increasing Union presence, equal hourly pay according to job (i.e.: how much labor is required to effectively work in this field), etc.
-Chris Andreasen
Real communism actually is a good thing, but doesn't work with humans.
Communism most definately can work with humans, just not really large groups (ie: large cities, states, countries, etc.). If you isolated forty people on a desert island and came back in couple of years, you would probably see a very communist lifestyle among the island's residents. A communist economy is give-what-you-can-take-what-you-need system, and I don't think that can exist unless the population is a small, tightly-knit community. A large population is just incapable of the level of communication that a small group can have, and thus people get would left out of the major decisions and there would be endless bickering/feuding.
I can see your point, though. A communist system can crumble into dystopia when corruption is present (I think Stalin is a fairly good example, even though the USSR didn't have a true communist economy). Having a large population increases the chance that there will be people that abuse the system. But now that I think about, it wasn't intended that in capitalist economy 5% of the people would control 95% of the wealth, as seen here in the US.
Straying slightly from the subject, though: why is it that whenever discussions on communism in slashdot spur up, it never has anything to do with the subject that the person who mentions communism is talking about.
There will be plenty of people who would choose certain skins for the sake of humor. I remember something from the book SnowCrash about how certain rules had to be added restricting avatars to human form because some people decided to walk around as giant penises or something like that.
Wait a sec...
In your post you said both
"WinNT is just as secure, if not more secure, than most Unix systems."
and
"I personally think that BO is dumb. Designing this program to comprimise a system that isn't designed to be secure is rediculous."
Is it just me or do your statements conflict with one another?
The basic notion of capitalism is, you can't make money without some sort of exchange with someone, and that person probably got something they wanted out of it too, which means the more money gets made, the better things get.
The basic notion capitalism isn't about exchanging goods and services for money/other goods and services, its about private ownership of capital. See a previous post of mine. No single person or group owns the rights to a particular free software product. Once the source is out, it belongs to everyone.
By your definition of capitalism, though, I still don't see the logic of your argument. You say free software is capitalistic, and then discuss how goods/services are exchanged for money in capitalist systems, but what does free software have to do with making money? If you post some great new program on the internet, people may be compelled to improve it and give the changes back to the community, but that doesn't involve exchanging anything. You're saying that if anyone wants to use this product, they're free to do so, and if you want to improve it they're free to do that as well. Any capital received as a result of creating this product is purely charity.
Free software is about aiming for a bigger pie, which is fine capitalism, too. Capitalism doesn't have to be about competition; cooperation is just as good a way to make a buck and you're more likely to like what you see in the mirror in the morning, too.
What does aiming for improvement have to do with anything? Yes, both free products and commercial products tend to aim for improvement, but that doesn't mean that these two concepts are the same. And again, free software has nothing to do with making money.
You can change the resolutions on the fly with X. Use Ctrl+Alt+Plus and Ctrl+Alt+Minus (Plus and Minus on the keypad, that is). You just can't change resolution on the fly. Windows 95 couldn't either. You had to reboot. At least with X you only had to shutdown the X server, not do a complete reboot. I don't know if that's changed since Win98, since I don't use it.
Oops... I meant you can't change color depth on the fly. Sorry.
You can change the resolutions on the fly with X. Use Ctrl+Alt+Plus and Ctrl+Alt+Minus (Plus and Minus on the keypad, that is). You just can't change resolution on the fly. Windows 95 couldn't either. You had to reboot. At least with X you only had to shutdown the X server, not do a complete reboot. I don't know if that's changed since Win98, since I don't use it.
...
I think the relation between software and economic systems that so often pops up here on Slashdot is comparing ownership of software to ownership of capital. Capital is privately owned in a capitalist system. However, the economic system to which Open-Source Software is most commonly compared to is communism, not socialism. All property is collectively owned in a communist state, but owned by the government in a socialist state.
"Evolution and natural selection" aren't always present in a capitalist system. Take Windows for example (keeping with anti-MS attitude so prevalent on Slashdot). Natural selection involves survival of the fittest, and if that were the case the Amiga or OS/2 would have stomped out Windows long ago. And as for evolution, you would expect Windows to have proper preemptive multitasking and protected memory management by now, wouldn't you? Every other OS seems to have evolved to that stage.
Webster's dictionary defines Socialism and Capitalism as:
Socialism: 1: Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods. 2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property. b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state. 3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between captialism and communism and distinguished by unequal distributions of goods and pay according to work done.
Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate of capital goods, by investments determined by private decisions rather than by state control, and by prices, production, and distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market.
Both Socialism and Capitalism are economic systems. The difference between them is that in a capitalist system capital is owned privately, whereas capital is owned by the state in a socialist economy. If a country owns a factory, that doesn't make them capitalist, it means they're industrialized.
I hope this clears any confusion on the matter.
Metcalfe said: OK, communism is too harsh on Linux. Lenin too harsh on Torvalds.
strredwolf said: It's actually Socialism, not communism (which the two get so mixed up it's suprizing you even mention it). Socialism, by Karl Marx, dictates that everyone, not the government (that's Communism), owns everything. Marx also states that it will be a slow progression into Socialism. Communism got screwed up by Lenin et al trying to speed things up. Guess what Russia got into now?
You have Communism and Socialism mixed up. Socialism is the transition point from capitalism to Communism. Communism is the point in Marxist ideology at which a central government is no longer needed to handle the distribution of goods and services.
Communism == evil?
Are you referring to the Soviet Union's/China's socialist dictatorships, or real Marxist Communism? The entire basis of communism is to have an economic system in which the people share in the profits of their labor. Sharing is evil?
Notice how I said economic system. Communism is not a form of government. The premise behind it is that the people are capable of governing themselves, therefore a true communism cannot really exist without being democratic.
Communism is just a nice dream that never works; it is bad, but a nice thought.
Communism has never been implemented on a large scale. The only real communist societies that ever been implemented are small "Utopian" societies, many of which failed because the people became greedy.
The socialist society created in Russia after the Bolshevik Revolution helped it immensely, though. The literacy rate soared and the country quickly changed from one of the word's most backwards nations to one the world's most industrialized. Then Stalin came to power and suddenly communism was considered evil because of one man's ruthlessness.
Communistic system murdered incredible amounts of humans in russia and china and are totally bloated and corrupted.
The communist (socialist, really) system in China and the Soviet Union didn't murder millions of people, it was the dictatorship.
Sorry if it seems like I'm nitpicking, but I greatly respect the communist ideals and hate it when people misinterpret them. I'm sure everyone on Slashdot hates the fact that the word "Hacker" has gotten a bad name because it became associated with something that doesn't at all relate to the original defintion. Same thing here.