At this point, Novell is up a creek with no paddle and a big leak in the boat (~800M revenue, about -200M income (!!!)). Yes, their SuSE division is essential if they want to be profitable, but that's like trying to bail out said boat even though it's still sinking.
Because we've spent so much time bitching about government and so little time organizing to change it, the Feds believe they are doing their jobs-- they're ensuring a lucrative future for themselves in lobbying or industrial consultancy.
Unless and until we continue to tell elected officials through the ballot box and their ears that blind allegiance to industry is unacceptable, they will continue to do whatever it takes to get rich in Washington.
Translation: There is no such thing as "public domain by default" in US copyright law* or Berne Convention signatory countries, because copyright law exists primarily to enrich the financiers of creative works (despite the text of the Constitution).
The best case scenario is if MusOpen got the performers to agree to license the recording under Creative Commons (or similar permissive licensing), but everyone will have to be on board, because a performer or their family can invalidate the license for everyone.
* The primary exception to this rule is government works, which are by default public domain. So a possible solution to this problem is to have the US government commission the work-- but I highly doubt the fiscal hawks will ever sign on to it. Never mind that the investment will be in the millions, compared to portions of the budget worth billions that fiscal hawks regularly ignore.
If I didn't know any better, I'd say they're still sore about the "I'm a Mac" ads. Although they weren't very accurate and they were arrogant as hell, Microsoft's responses ("look ma, cheap PC with a ton of bloatware I don't need!" and of course Seinfeld & Bill) have been absolutely pathetic-- and in the case of mobile, they had a golden opportunity to rip Apple a good one over their response to the iPhone 4 antenna design flaw. I mean, come on... they had a ton of examples from other handset makers.
Watching Microsoft's recent PR is sort of like watching a grown man miss a tee-ball. In three swings.
Of course, the judge probably never bothered to consider the fact that the studio in question played the exact same recording industry end-run around legal procedures by first suing a bunch of "John Does", subpoenaing the ISP for their names and numbers, then dropping the case without prejudice and suing the individual "John Does" using their real names-- a clear misuse of the courts that wastes time and resources, but thus far unchallenged and thereby silently encouraged, to my recollection. The judge also probably never bothered to consider that the names obtained in this fashion are notoriously unreliable, especially considering dynamic address allocation and the widespread use of wireless networks and the poor access security thereof.
No, the judge decided that this was permissible either because he (she?) believes that kids downloading movies online is a grave affront to justice akin to mass looting, or that the arguments that this judge can consider were filtered by a overly narrow consideration of the case. While young kids and their families are squeezed for millions of dollars (often sent straight to the media industry's legal counsels), the bootleg industry in Asia makes off with billions of dollars' worth of undeserved revenue.
And underestimating the ability of well-financed people of a more or less singular political persuasion to tempt the rest of society into following them is naive, IMO. Right now the money is flowing to the Right, because they've promised the short-term preservation of wealth and profit, and spoke nothing of the inevitable decline thereof.
Ideas from every position should be evaluated, vetted, and chosen or rejected based on their merits. However, there are these things called human ambition and greed that generally turn that (painfully slow) sausage maker into one that furthers the interests of a few by exploiting our desire for certain things (money, comfort, security, monoculture, etc.) immediately. Every now and again we shoo away the prominent offenders, but if history is any lesson, they always come back in one form or another.
There is a reason why legal immigrants integrate into america and make it stronger with parts of their former culture while illegal immigrants form pockets of what they consider to still be their culture.
Care to elaborate on that? I could easily claim that while legal immigrants tend to "integrate" to a certain extent, they largely treat their ethnic heritage with pride and generally commingle with other foreign nationals, immigrants, and citizens of common ancestry. To a certain extent, they're forming a "pocket of what they consider to still be their culture"-- if this were not the case, Little Tokyo, the many Chinatowns, Little Saigon, etc. would not exist. Conversely, I can dispute your claim that illegals isolate themselves from the rest of American society because (a) you didn't support that claim, and (b) in order to support themselves, let alone their families, they would have to interact with American society by accepting jobs.
Yes, the illegals broke the law. Yes, they need to leave the country and (assuming they sincerely want to contribute) enter the country legitimately. The arguments against hardline tactics such as hunting them (the GP presumably meant with vigilante groups in camouflage and hunting rifles) generally do not say anything about whether illegals broke the law because it's irrelevant to the objection.
We would at least have a public option, but single payer is debatable, since there were no more than a small handful of Congressmen who supported it. Even the President himself wasn't enthused about single payer, remember?
Disclaimer: I do recall that the public overwhelmingly supported the public option, but I don't remember the numbers on single payer, assuming any of the pollsters took that data. I'm sure both of us will agree that the fact that no one ultimately pushed for the public option in the Senate is one of the greatest travesties of the health care reform law.
I don't think you can make the case that every rally is absurd. If you would recall, the famous MLK "I Have a Dream" oratory that effectively put the national spotlight on the issue of segregation and institutionalized racism in the South was part of a march and rally for labor-- and Dr. King wasn't even the keynote speaker! Without this rally, would there be the political motivation for a Civil Rights Act? I doubt it-- the Democrats (particularly LBJ) knew that it would kill the coalition in the South. Without the rally, I daresay that the Democrats would be the right-wing conservative party instead of the Republicans today, because the primary impetus behind the Southern Strategy would be nerfed.
I would argue that the sole point of such rallies is to gain attention from, and to raise awareness among, the people who matter-- the people who vote*. Sure, nearly every political rally fails in this regard, because usually they're about nothing, they're about something or someone trivial, or they're highly deceptive. But I bet there were a handful like that march for labor and freedom on Washington that truly changed the course of history.
* Nowadays, it's all about the people who finance candidates and ballot initiatives, but the bottom line is, unless the financiers can commit electoral fraud on a massive scale with impunity, the ultimate power still resides with the populace.
Usually the moderate and conservative Democrats are well aware of overseas corporate tax "shelters"-- they just don't want their voters knowing they privately want campaign dollars from corporations who use such shelters.
Disclosure is important either way, since the Democrats are generally no less eager to get corporate campaign funds than Republicans are. Only a handful of progressives in the Democratic caucus eschew corporate dollars, but that leaves them open to well-funded challengers from the right.
In order to go without corporate PAC funding, you pretty much have to be famous (Franken) or outspoken/well-spoken (Grayson, Kucinich, Paul, Obama for the most part).
This. I'm always amused/disappointed at the dichotomous view that Third Way("Centrist")/Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans have of government vs. private enterprise. On the one hand, government is so big and powerful they'll crush private competitors (yeah, great job the USPS is doing crushing UPS and FedEx./sarcasm); on the other hand, government is so clumsy and incompetent they'll screw up anything they touch (if that were the case, wouldn't we be in default by 2004?).
Bottom line is, every organization, be it a subsidiary of a corporation or a government-appointed body, is prone to corruption and greed given a certain threshold of power and money allocated to it. It is therefore the responsibility of the people to keep a close eye on such organizations, that they are using their power and funds for the intended purposes, and hold them accountable if they do not. The past decade demonstrates that we all failed in this regard, and therefore it is imperative that we step up efforts. The GAO has been outstanding in this regard, so IMO it falls to us to demand better journalism, better representation, and better policy.
The soundbite "corporations fund the government" is probably better expressed as "corporations contribute more than individuals to political campaigns"-- and with the Citizens United decision, corporations are poised to dump millions of dollars into campaigns this year, such as the recent $1 million donation by NewsCorp to the Republican gubernatorial fund. This gets the politicians' interests, not tax money-- taxes are what they use to piss off voters and get themselves re-elected, so they can cut more off the top rates. Democrats are especially clumsy at handling this because (1) they're just as complicit as Republicans in accepting corporate money-- though the corps are starting to abandon them; (2) Democrats, unlike Republicans, have never had a cohesive tax message (it is hard to beat "NO MOAR TAXES!"), and can get themselves in very hot water if they screw up planning or communication (case in point: Japanese PM Kan talking about raising the VAT in the fortnight before the Councilors' election; yes, he's Japanese, but the DPJ is largely cut from the same ideological cloth as the Third Way Democrats in the USA).
Furthermore, the idea that individuals pay more than corporations can be a bit misleading, as there are many more individuals than corporations, and corporations pay a larger amount per return (at least, those who are honest). Still, the question of why government does the bidding of corporations when ordinary Joes pay more into the system is a valid one. This isn't a refutation of this part of your argument, by the way-- this is essentially what a pro-business conservative/libertarian would bring up.
If Japanese made a radical change to their language like the Koreans did*, they'll lose an important distinguishing cue that kanji provides in differentiating homophones and in word selection-- remember, the big three East Asian languages don't use spaces. Unless I'm mistaken, Hangul has the advantage that you can easily differentiate words, but Japanese doesn't do that because it's understood that the writer would also use kanji. If they went full-on kana, they would need to incorporate spaces in addition to the usual punctuation.
True, some Heian-era poetry and some epic writings like The Tale of Genji were written exclusively with hiragana, so one can make the argument that Japan can dump kanji and just go all kana. But the former was deliberately done to take advantage of puns and similar literary devices (these were essentially the equivalent of Shakespearean love sonnets), and the latter was written by someone with no knowledge of kanji (as women were not expected to study kanji-- i.e., to educate themselves-- until the early 20th century)-- one can just as easily make the argument that just because Japan can dump kanji doesn't mean that they should dump kanji-- The Tale of Genji, in its original form, is incredibly difficult to read, even for Japanese scholars.
* The Japanese "don't mess with the status quo" mentality, in addition to the impression that dumping kanji would mean admitting defeat, makes such a change impossible.
(Playing devil's advocate) The public school teacher may be considered an employee of the people, and therefore subject to public scrutiny.
I don't agree, by the way-- this is a clear violation of California's privacy protection guarantee, and it is an oversimplified metric that will cause activist parents to be outraged over the wrong things. The reporters and editors may feel that they're doing a public service by exposing teachers whose students score poorly on standardized tests, but what they will be doing is further undermining public education and screwing up LAUSD (which, quite frankly, doesn't need the LA Times' help to screw up).
The recent revelation that for-profit colleges have been engaging in fraud and/or outright deceiving students is timely and telling. If LAUSD fails, for-profit schools will likely take its place.
You may want to question instead the wisdom of an "Idle" section for Slashdot. (I suspect it's for the editors' entertainment more than that of the readers...)
In other words, he's using the Sarah Palin playbook that both Sharron Angle and Rand Paul bought: Say something completely stupid and/or insane in the presence of national media or bloggers, and later blame them for publishing the stupid/insane thing you said.
I can't imagine why the idiot right-wing candidates would adopt this strategy, considering that Palin was a major factor in her party's loss in 2008. Oh, wait...
The point is, you're not much of a genius if you're ineffective at what you're doing. Conservatives and libertarians love to point out that national government (and exclusively national government) is both a bumbling bureaucracy that can't do anything right, and, simultaneously, this amazing Machiavellian mastermind that will crush the 5% of this country who control over 80% of this country's wealth. The problem is, reality doesn't fit with the latter (especially considering that Democrats and Republicans both want a cut of that 80%), and the former is at best an exaggeration. Worst of all, the entire political Right (many libertarians included) has bought into Grover Norquist's ideal size of government, when even this country's founders found that an effective government, complete with all those onerous taxes, tariffs, and regulatory oversight, is crucial to stave off the kind of stuff we see in Somalia. Or perhaps that's precisely what Norquist wants?
I have to say that I'm rather sick and tired of the Right putting out crazy statements as if they were true and all but bludgeoning anyone who dares call them on it with the "liberal bias" bullshit canard. Another sick example of this is the Right's consistent referral of the President to a king and/or some liberal messiah, as if Obama's supporters all believe he's this demigod out to destroy conservatism. Imagine if The Nation or Kos referred to Bush like that in 2004? They would be bombarded by the corporate (no, not liberal) media.
Yes, and when they conflict, you hear rather loud catcalls of "RINO" and other abuse. Remember Scott McClellan? Colin Powell? David Frum? Meghan McCain (before she scampered back to the Right where her father holed up)?
The current Republican message is, "We must oppose everything that Obama and the Democrats do and stand for without compromise or compassion, because they are going to try to improve the lives of those who do not make more than a quarter million dollars a year." You do not oppose a Republican without facing the wrath of the rest of the party, and that goes for Republicans who stray from this message.
Next thing you know, a kindergarten student, whose parents are Ron Paul libertarians, will call his teacher a "commie socialist" for telling him to share toys with the other kids.
You're positing that the two are mutually exclusive. Why would that be? If the relationship is symbiotic, for example, then they would not be mutually exclusive.
And the list of things to top the madness that is the McAfee purchase: 1. A solid gold Humvee for every executive. 2. A diamond-studded swimming pool at every Intel office (but not for employees).
Slashdot Mirror
At this point, Novell is up a creek with no paddle and a big leak in the boat (~800M revenue, about -200M income (!!!)). Yes, their SuSE division is essential if they want to be profitable, but that's like trying to bail out said boat even though it's still sinking.
And "dextrose" is one industrial name for glucose. Essentially it's cornstarch broken down into its component monomers.
Because we've spent so much time bitching about government and so little time organizing to change it, the Feds believe they are doing their jobs-- they're ensuring a lucrative future for themselves in lobbying or industrial consultancy.
Unless and until we continue to tell elected officials through the ballot box and their ears that blind allegiance to industry is unacceptable, they will continue to do whatever it takes to get rich in Washington.
Translation: There is no such thing as "public domain by default" in US copyright law* or Berne Convention signatory countries, because copyright law exists primarily to enrich the financiers of creative works (despite the text of the Constitution).
The best case scenario is if MusOpen got the performers to agree to license the recording under Creative Commons (or similar permissive licensing), but everyone will have to be on board, because a performer or their family can invalidate the license for everyone.
* The primary exception to this rule is government works, which are by default public domain. So a possible solution to this problem is to have the US government commission the work-- but I highly doubt the fiscal hawks will ever sign on to it. Never mind that the investment will be in the millions, compared to portions of the budget worth billions that fiscal hawks regularly ignore.
If I didn't know any better, I'd say they're still sore about the "I'm a Mac" ads. Although they weren't very accurate and they were arrogant as hell, Microsoft's responses ("look ma, cheap PC with a ton of bloatware I don't need!" and of course Seinfeld & Bill) have been absolutely pathetic-- and in the case of mobile, they had a golden opportunity to rip Apple a good one over their response to the iPhone 4 antenna design flaw. I mean, come on... they had a ton of examples from other handset makers.
Watching Microsoft's recent PR is sort of like watching a grown man miss a tee-ball. In three swings.
Of course, the judge probably never bothered to consider the fact that the studio in question played the exact same recording industry end-run around legal procedures by first suing a bunch of "John Does", subpoenaing the ISP for their names and numbers, then dropping the case without prejudice and suing the individual "John Does" using their real names-- a clear misuse of the courts that wastes time and resources, but thus far unchallenged and thereby silently encouraged, to my recollection. The judge also probably never bothered to consider that the names obtained in this fashion are notoriously unreliable, especially considering dynamic address allocation and the widespread use of wireless networks and the poor access security thereof.
No, the judge decided that this was permissible either because he (she?) believes that kids downloading movies online is a grave affront to justice akin to mass looting, or that the arguments that this judge can consider were filtered by a overly narrow consideration of the case. While young kids and their families are squeezed for millions of dollars (often sent straight to the media industry's legal counsels), the bootleg industry in Asia makes off with billions of dollars' worth of undeserved revenue.
And underestimating the ability of well-financed people of a more or less singular political persuasion to tempt the rest of society into following them is naive, IMO. Right now the money is flowing to the Right, because they've promised the short-term preservation of wealth and profit, and spoke nothing of the inevitable decline thereof.
Ideas from every position should be evaluated, vetted, and chosen or rejected based on their merits. However, there are these things called human ambition and greed that generally turn that (painfully slow) sausage maker into one that furthers the interests of a few by exploiting our desire for certain things (money, comfort, security, monoculture, etc.) immediately. Every now and again we shoo away the prominent offenders, but if history is any lesson, they always come back in one form or another.
Care to elaborate on that? I could easily claim that while legal immigrants tend to "integrate" to a certain extent, they largely treat their ethnic heritage with pride and generally commingle with other foreign nationals, immigrants, and citizens of common ancestry. To a certain extent, they're forming a "pocket of what they consider to still be their culture"-- if this were not the case, Little Tokyo, the many Chinatowns, Little Saigon, etc. would not exist. Conversely, I can dispute your claim that illegals isolate themselves from the rest of American society because (a) you didn't support that claim, and (b) in order to support themselves, let alone their families, they would have to interact with American society by accepting jobs.
Yes, the illegals broke the law. Yes, they need to leave the country and (assuming they sincerely want to contribute) enter the country legitimately. The arguments against hardline tactics such as hunting them (the GP presumably meant with vigilante groups in camouflage and hunting rifles) generally do not say anything about whether illegals broke the law because it's irrelevant to the objection.
We would at least have a public option, but single payer is debatable, since there were no more than a small handful of Congressmen who supported it. Even the President himself wasn't enthused about single payer, remember?
Disclaimer: I do recall that the public overwhelmingly supported the public option, but I don't remember the numbers on single payer, assuming any of the pollsters took that data. I'm sure both of us will agree that the fact that no one ultimately pushed for the public option in the Senate is one of the greatest travesties of the health care reform law.
I don't think you can make the case that every rally is absurd. If you would recall, the famous MLK "I Have a Dream" oratory that effectively put the national spotlight on the issue of segregation and institutionalized racism in the South was part of a march and rally for labor-- and Dr. King wasn't even the keynote speaker! Without this rally, would there be the political motivation for a Civil Rights Act? I doubt it-- the Democrats (particularly LBJ) knew that it would kill the coalition in the South. Without the rally, I daresay that the Democrats would be the right-wing conservative party instead of the Republicans today, because the primary impetus behind the Southern Strategy would be nerfed.
I would argue that the sole point of such rallies is to gain attention from, and to raise awareness among, the people who matter-- the people who vote*. Sure, nearly every political rally fails in this regard, because usually they're about nothing, they're about something or someone trivial, or they're highly deceptive. But I bet there were a handful like that march for labor and freedom on Washington that truly changed the course of history.
* Nowadays, it's all about the people who finance candidates and ballot initiatives, but the bottom line is, unless the financiers can commit electoral fraud on a massive scale with impunity, the ultimate power still resides with the populace.
Usually the moderate and conservative Democrats are well aware of overseas corporate tax "shelters"-- they just don't want their voters knowing they privately want campaign dollars from corporations who use such shelters.
Disclosure is important either way, since the Democrats are generally no less eager to get corporate campaign funds than Republicans are. Only a handful of progressives in the Democratic caucus eschew corporate dollars, but that leaves them open to well-funded challengers from the right.
In order to go without corporate PAC funding, you pretty much have to be famous (Franken) or outspoken/well-spoken (Grayson, Kucinich, Paul, Obama for the most part).
This. I'm always amused/disappointed at the dichotomous view that Third Way("Centrist")/Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans have of government vs. private enterprise. On the one hand, government is so big and powerful they'll crush private competitors (yeah, great job the USPS is doing crushing UPS and FedEx. /sarcasm); on the other hand, government is so clumsy and incompetent they'll screw up anything they touch (if that were the case, wouldn't we be in default by 2004?).
Bottom line is, every organization, be it a subsidiary of a corporation or a government-appointed body, is prone to corruption and greed given a certain threshold of power and money allocated to it. It is therefore the responsibility of the people to keep a close eye on such organizations, that they are using their power and funds for the intended purposes, and hold them accountable if they do not. The past decade demonstrates that we all failed in this regard, and therefore it is imperative that we step up efforts. The GAO has been outstanding in this regard, so IMO it falls to us to demand better journalism, better representation, and better policy.
The soundbite "corporations fund the government" is probably better expressed as "corporations contribute more than individuals to political campaigns"-- and with the Citizens United decision, corporations are poised to dump millions of dollars into campaigns this year, such as the recent $1 million donation by NewsCorp to the Republican gubernatorial fund. This gets the politicians' interests, not tax money-- taxes are what they use to piss off voters and get themselves re-elected, so they can cut more off the top rates. Democrats are especially clumsy at handling this because (1) they're just as complicit as Republicans in accepting corporate money-- though the corps are starting to abandon them; (2) Democrats, unlike Republicans, have never had a cohesive tax message (it is hard to beat "NO MOAR TAXES!"), and can get themselves in very hot water if they screw up planning or communication (case in point: Japanese PM Kan talking about raising the VAT in the fortnight before the Councilors' election; yes, he's Japanese, but the DPJ is largely cut from the same ideological cloth as the Third Way Democrats in the USA).
Furthermore, the idea that individuals pay more than corporations can be a bit misleading, as there are many more individuals than corporations, and corporations pay a larger amount per return (at least, those who are honest). Still, the question of why government does the bidding of corporations when ordinary Joes pay more into the system is a valid one. This isn't a refutation of this part of your argument, by the way-- this is essentially what a pro-business conservative/libertarian would bring up.
If Japanese made a radical change to their language like the Koreans did*, they'll lose an important distinguishing cue that kanji provides in differentiating homophones and in word selection-- remember, the big three East Asian languages don't use spaces. Unless I'm mistaken, Hangul has the advantage that you can easily differentiate words, but Japanese doesn't do that because it's understood that the writer would also use kanji. If they went full-on kana, they would need to incorporate spaces in addition to the usual punctuation.
True, some Heian-era poetry and some epic writings like The Tale of Genji were written exclusively with hiragana, so one can make the argument that Japan can dump kanji and just go all kana. But the former was deliberately done to take advantage of puns and similar literary devices (these were essentially the equivalent of Shakespearean love sonnets), and the latter was written by someone with no knowledge of kanji (as women were not expected to study kanji-- i.e., to educate themselves-- until the early 20th century)-- one can just as easily make the argument that just because Japan can dump kanji doesn't mean that they should dump kanji-- The Tale of Genji, in its original form, is incredibly difficult to read, even for Japanese scholars.
* The Japanese "don't mess with the status quo" mentality, in addition to the impression that dumping kanji would mean admitting defeat, makes such a change impossible.
Given that this is likely a Google Voice integration into GMail, we'll probably see this in the Google Voice app.
(Playing devil's advocate) The public school teacher may be considered an employee of the people, and therefore subject to public scrutiny.
I don't agree, by the way-- this is a clear violation of California's privacy protection guarantee, and it is an oversimplified metric that will cause activist parents to be outraged over the wrong things. The reporters and editors may feel that they're doing a public service by exposing teachers whose students score poorly on standardized tests, but what they will be doing is further undermining public education and screwing up LAUSD (which, quite frankly, doesn't need the LA Times' help to screw up).
The recent revelation that for-profit colleges have been engaging in fraud and/or outright deceiving students is timely and telling. If LAUSD fails, for-profit schools will likely take its place.
Sounds like a job for Mentos.
You may want to question instead the wisdom of an "Idle" section for Slashdot. (I suspect it's for the editors' entertainment more than that of the readers...)
In other words, he's using the Sarah Palin playbook that both Sharron Angle and Rand Paul bought: Say something completely stupid and/or insane in the presence of national media or bloggers, and later blame them for publishing the stupid/insane thing you said.
I can't imagine why the idiot right-wing candidates would adopt this strategy, considering that Palin was a major factor in her party's loss in 2008. Oh, wait...
The point is, you're not much of a genius if you're ineffective at what you're doing. Conservatives and libertarians love to point out that national government (and exclusively national government) is both a bumbling bureaucracy that can't do anything right, and, simultaneously, this amazing Machiavellian mastermind that will crush the 5% of this country who control over 80% of this country's wealth. The problem is, reality doesn't fit with the latter (especially considering that Democrats and Republicans both want a cut of that 80%), and the former is at best an exaggeration. Worst of all, the entire political Right (many libertarians included) has bought into Grover Norquist's ideal size of government, when even this country's founders found that an effective government, complete with all those onerous taxes, tariffs, and regulatory oversight, is crucial to stave off the kind of stuff we see in Somalia. Or perhaps that's precisely what Norquist wants?
I have to say that I'm rather sick and tired of the Right putting out crazy statements as if they were true and all but bludgeoning anyone who dares call them on it with the "liberal bias" bullshit canard. Another sick example of this is the Right's consistent referral of the President to a king and/or some liberal messiah, as if Obama's supporters all believe he's this demigod out to destroy conservatism. Imagine if The Nation or Kos referred to Bush like that in 2004? They would be bombarded by the corporate (no, not liberal) media.
Yes, and when they conflict, you hear rather loud catcalls of "RINO" and other abuse. Remember Scott McClellan? Colin Powell? David Frum? Meghan McCain (before she scampered back to the Right where her father holed up)?
The current Republican message is, "We must oppose everything that Obama and the Democrats do and stand for without compromise or compassion, because they are going to try to improve the lives of those who do not make more than a quarter million dollars a year." You do not oppose a Republican without facing the wrath of the rest of the party, and that goes for Republicans who stray from this message.
Next thing you know, a kindergarten student, whose parents are Ron Paul libertarians, will call his teacher a "commie socialist" for telling him to share toys with the other kids.
You're positing that the two are mutually exclusive. Why would that be? If the relationship is symbiotic, for example, then they would not be mutually exclusive.
5. A nice dividend payment to INTC shareholders.
And the list of things to top the madness that is the McAfee purchase:
1. A solid gold Humvee for every executive.
2. A diamond-studded swimming pool at every Intel office (but not for employees).