Not to mention that on the Internet, if your little website host gets clogged by a DDoS, there are hundreds of other online channels you can spread the exact same information -- from the many online blogging services, to Facebook, to torrents, to using mirrors, to the many free website creation and publishing services, to 'all of the above'. Heck, most DDoS's can be mitigated by just getting better hosting, or using static content instead of dynamic content where possible... basic things and even the sensationalist report admits this (I read it), right before inexplicably and in a spectacular non-sequitir, calling for "policy responses" to address the "problem".
I read both the article and the report, and it confirms 110% what unity100 is saying. The article specifically calls for "policy responses" to fix the so-called "problem". The article and report specifically bend over very far backwards to try artificially frame this as a "human rights" issue, even putting "human rights" in the title of the report. This is standard fear-mongering propaganda to push for legislative power in the finest 3rd-world communist tradition.
I presume this is an off-topic discussion, because so-called 'Net Neutrality' is not going to ring in an era of lower prices and increased competition.
Statistically, the US always has, and continues to place quite well in both pricing and bandwidth on broadband options, certainly always on par with its peer economies, so it's intriguing how much Americans complain.
There really is no "problem" waiting to be solved by 'Net Neutrality', and handing the power to regulate over to government is just one more nail in the economy's coffin.
"We propose a broad public discussion of a range of policy responses to the rise of DDOS attacks against independent media organizations and human rights groups, with a view toward a sustainable long-term approach that balances the range of legitimate interests involved."
Translation, 'government needs more power to regulate the Internet'.
They do precede that with some actual technical tips that can be used to mitigate against most DDoS attacks, interestingly enough. Thing is it's most trivial for the average site owner to work around; their speech has not been 'blocked' as there are always myriad other channels easily utilized (even the report admits this). And it's not more of a "human rights violation" just because a human rights website was chosen, and I propose that their specific sampling of so-called "human rights sites" was designed specifically to give the report a human rights "spin" in an attempt to justify the premise, i.e. greater government control.
A DDOS is like cutting someone's phone line. It seems like it should be a crime, but having your website go down for a few days is now a human rights violation? Puh-lease. This stinks of a vested interest trying to increase government power by issuing fear-mongering propaganda. The majority of DDOS attacks can be mitigated fairly easily; they're more of a nuisance value.
"Human rights and independent media sites are under constant attack," said Ethan Zuckerman
What!? Absolutely blatant rubbish.
Zuckerman's team also polled more than 300 human rights and independent media sites around the world, and convinced 45, or 14% of the total, to talk about DDoS attacks.
Note the implication that the rest were "afraid" somehow to "speak out", as if to imply all of them have been hit but it's some shadowy secret. More like most the site owners had better things to do, or didn't know a DDOS from a bar of soap. The methodology of self-respondence also sounds highly flawed, I bet half of them were probably hit by plain old scripted hacks, but went and called it a DDOS because they don't know the difference. (If you've ever seen a self-reporting poll that asks users e.g. 'which version of Office (or Windows) are you running' you'll find most don't even know the difference between the Office version and the Windows version, these are the people who are being polled on their sites being DDOS'd?). There is also no control group apparently, i.e. did he measure if the incidence of attacks is higher for human rights sites compared to the general population of websites? Also, how does he define a "human rights" site, does he include e.g. pro-Islam "charity" sites?
Admittedly I haven't read the report, but given it already stinks like shit, I'd probably just get my fingers dirty.
... that she might miss out on a chance to sue a big company for a whole lot of money she doesn't deserve, by feigning distress. I'm sure nobody involved thinks it's anything other than BS, but they're probably hoping Google will settle.
Well it is their store, so I agree with that in principle (just as it's my right to not purchase from or develop for their app store in disgust, and to complain about it loudly), because Apple's rights are your and my rights* too (for anything we might create someday). Users already have rights, sure, e.g. they may not be defrauded by Apple (for example, if Apple blocked an app after a customer has paid for it, that would be fraudulent) but I don't think that's what's happening; rather, it seems the app developer violated some of Apple's draconian and controlling rules.
* When demanding regulation (e.g. what you call "balance") people always make the mistake of thinking they're voting away "someone else's rights". In their minds, it's always "someone else" that they don't perceive could ever be them - a big company, the rich, whatever --- what people seldom seem to realize is that you cannot vote away someone else's rights without voting away your own rights too. Steve Jobs' rights to be draconian in his store, are your rights. You want to vote away Steve's rights, you cannot do it without voting away your own rights, and your children (born or unborn), and your brothers and sisters, and your parents and grandparents, and your friends rights, etc. etc., and when you or anyone you know wants to start a business and open a store, oops, you find they have run into the same crushing regulations that people asked for to curtail control freaks like Steve.
Let the market sort it out. Android is growing so incredibly quickly that they will have more apps than Apple within a year. And within five years, everyone and their dog will have app stores and it'll be a huge, free bonanza (unless someone decides they should be over-regulated).
Yes, I'm all for placing public pressure on companies to promote and behave according to such ideals... but not by using the force of the state, just by voting with our wallets, complaining loudly, etc.
Actually it's fortunate it doesn't apply, because if you think about it, what you're asking for would mean that government would literally have the mandate to *force* private individuals to carry a message they may not want to. Having a right to freedom of speech doesn't mean that other private individuals should be required by law to carry and spread anyone else's message (even at their own cost). Apple consists of private individuals, if governments could force Apple to carry anyone's speech, they could force you and me to carry speech too. If a kid scrawled graffiti on your wall, hey, that's "speech", government should force you to leave it up. Thankfully that's not how things work.
That said, dammit Apple, you keep disappointing me on a regular basis with the closedness and the draconian control over what is and isn't allowed in your 'app store'.
Fortunately there is competition, and competing app stores and platforms are popping up like mushrooms. So I'm not too worried, app stores will be forced to remain quite open thanks to competition. Apple's attitude is already reflecting in their market growth vs the growth of others like Android, and they'll have to ease up a little or they'll keep losing share.
But there was this girl with whom I had shared an long sexual relationship, and one night it developed that I started to fuck her while she was asleep.
And in Assange's case, this woman must've gone to bed naked with him (or did he allegedly undress her while she slept too? boy this woman is a deep sleeper). If you don't want to have sex with a guy, you hardly climb naked into their bed.
If he was not trying to sidestep investigation, then why did he leave the country and refuse to return for questioning?
Now you are really just making up complete lies (and revealing your true agenda, apparently), because he at no point did he "refuse" to return for questioning; as soon as their paperwork for the request was in order, he complied fully and legally and cooperatively. He has cooperated every step of the way. He was perfectly legally allowed to leave the country. You clearly have an agenda, and clearly are lying.
But, the part you are missing is this: Assange could and should have stopped when the condom broke and the woman asked him to stop.
And the part you are missing is that this is just their story and there is no evidence that this is actually what happened. You speak as if you've assumed he is guilty, you don't even put "allegedly". Do you believe women never lie about things like this?
Yeah, my interpretation too; davev's position seems to be that the woman is always automatically telling the truth, the man always automatically lying, and that Julian is guilty until proven innocent.
I may have used the incorrect term on 'dilation' - I'm not sure what the correct term is, but the term is irrelevant, I am right, a woman's vag is by default far too constricted for anything thicker than a pencil to enter without either a lot of force or lubrication, and sexual stimulation causes it to open wider. (So either davev doesn't have the first clue about this, or his penis is pencil-thin)... I've been sleeping with women regularly for sixteen years and trust me, it's basically impossible to have non-forced sex with a woman unless she is awake.
Is it basically their word against his, or has he also admitted that that's what happened? Far as I can tell, he's denied their version of events. It's not rape if they're just making it up.
"... and in the second by having sex without using a condom with a woman who was asleep"
I'll refrain from making silly jokes like 'slashdot forumites probably wouldn't understand this', but do you realize that unless she's extremely heavily under the influence of narcotics, it's all but impossible to have sex with a woman who is asleep without pretty much waking her up completely in the process? (And pretty much on first penetration, because if she's asleep she won't be dilated or wet either, so you'd have to use a sizable amount of force.) Story sounds a bit fishy to me. Add to that they seemed perfectly happy and then only seemed to decide later it was 'rape', after they found out he was cheating.
Yes, you build up a network of contacts in the world of the most successful people. But that is important. But interacting with successful people does more than just give you "contacts"; there is inherently automatically a "mentoring" effect.
"But other researchers say the extent to which one takes advantage of the educational offerings of an institution may be more important, in the long run"
This is theoretically true at an individual level. If I think to my own days in a third-world mediocre public school and university, I would say I ultimately managed to get a good education 'in spite of' my school/university, not because of it --- but even so, I often performed very poorly (regretfully), and if I had to name THE single-biggest thing that negatively influenced my performance, I would have to say it was being surrounded by almost 100% uniformly poor-performing peers; they were stupid, they were lazy, they didn't care, learning was the least important thing imaginable, and stupidity and laziness was basically celebrated. When 99.9% of a child's peers are like that, as happened with me, it is almost impossible not to be negatively influenced and 'dragged down' to some degree.
Now, many years later, I have a baby on the way, and have to start thinking about where to send her someday. And I definitely feel that if I can afford it, I want her in one of the top-notch universities. Why? Not because I'm expecting miracles from the professors or infrastructure, but because I know she is most likely to be surrounded by a comparatively higher percentage of peers who are amongst those in society with the highest focus and motivation on hard work and success.
It is oddly seldom mentioned, but beyond parenting and teachers, I think the quality of peers that your child sits with must have a huge influence on their outcomes.
The other reason is that I indeed want my children to mingle with society's successful people, not just to build contacts, but because there is an inherent mentoring effect. Even spending a day with someone highly successful at something can make a young persons entire career. The most successful people in finance and investing, tend to have had top-notch mentors, and you can mostly only find those people in the upper echelons.
Like it or not, many of the most successful IT entrepreneurs etc. do come from backgrounds that allowed them to attend top-notch universities, and there are reasons for that.
Can children be successful in cheaper schools, sure, of course, but suddenly when parenthood looms I just think I want the statistically best chance for my kids, so they can have opportunities I never had.
I love the way that as long as you tack the word "reform" onto something, it can automatically be considered good by so many people even if you're actually making things worse. Gotta love that word. It is on one hand meaningless, and on the other politically expedient, for what kind of horrible person would be against "reforming" something?
(Apologies for replying to own post).. continued... I'm not saying I think Bartz is doing a good job at Yahoo. Clearly Yahoo is slowly sinking. But if the shareholders are keeping her on 'anyway', then probably it means they literally don't know of any better options for who to run the company.
Yeah, then they'll REALLY be able to attract the kind of management skill you need to make Yahoo a top-notch company!
I don't follow Yahoo closely enough to know if Bartz is doing an OK job, but I do know enough to know that good IT CEO skills are extremely, extremely rare. By and large, if the skills were more commonplace, then salaries would be much lower, because CEO's would be more easily replaceable and the CEO labor market is completely and brutally a free one. If the owners are keeping a particular CEO on at such expense, it's usually because they feel that the value that person brings to the company is greater than the cost. If they didn't, they would (usually) replace the CEO. And CEO's do often get replaced when they don't perform well. In other words, the shareholders feel that if they replaced Bartz, they would lose much more than 40 million dollars a year. If you disagree with me, then why don't you (or I) apply for the job? Earn the big bucks? Approach the board and tell them you'll do the same job, cheaper? Just think, you could be earning so much money! Fact is, I'm honest enough with myself to know I'm not good enough to run such a company, I'd probably run it into the ground, and it's a great responsibility. So when people whine about executive pay, I often think, 'well instead of whining why don't you just apply for that job'? Fact is almost nobody has the skill and capability for such a job. Not only would I not be able to run Yahoo, truly honestly, I don't even know anyone who would be able to either.
Sometimes people don't deserve the pay and are still kept on too long, Carly Fiorina at HP comes to mind. But by and large, it's a totally free labor market. Shareholders are people like you or I. If you owned a company, and you had to pick from two people who were identically capable of running your company, but one charged much less - naturally you would choose the cheaper one.
That's because there are four primary 'poles', not two as the left-right system implies and distorts our thoughts on the system; the 'right' in the US are typically higher on economic liberty but low on social liberty; 'liberals' vice-versa. In reality the best system is one which has high social and economic liberty.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention that on the Internet, if your little website host gets clogged by a DDoS, there are hundreds of other online channels you can spread the exact same information -- from the many online blogging services, to Facebook, to torrents, to using mirrors, to the many free website creation and publishing services, to 'all of the above'. Heck, most DDoS's can be mitigated by just getting better hosting, or using static content instead of dynamic content where possible ... basic things and even the sensationalist report admits this (I read it), right before inexplicably and in a spectacular non-sequitir, calling for "policy responses" to address the "problem".
I read both the article and the report, and it confirms 110% what unity100 is saying. The article specifically calls for "policy responses" to fix the so-called "problem". The article and report specifically bend over very far backwards to try artificially frame this as a "human rights" issue, even putting "human rights" in the title of the report. This is standard fear-mongering propaganda to push for legislative power in the finest 3rd-world communist tradition.
I presume this is an off-topic discussion, because so-called 'Net Neutrality' is not going to ring in an era of lower prices and increased competition.
Statistically, the US always has, and continues to place quite well in both pricing and bandwidth on broadband options, certainly always on par with its peer economies, so it's intriguing how much Americans complain.
There really is no "problem" waiting to be solved by 'Net Neutrality', and handing the power to regulate over to government is just one more nail in the economy's coffin.
OK, now I have skimmed the report, and voila:
"We propose a broad public discussion of a range of policy responses to the rise of DDOS attacks against independent media organizations and human rights groups, with a view toward a sustainable long-term approach that balances the range of legitimate interests involved."
Translation, 'government needs more power to regulate the Internet'.
They do precede that with some actual technical tips that can be used to mitigate against most DDoS attacks, interestingly enough. Thing is it's most trivial for the average site owner to work around; their speech has not been 'blocked' as there are always myriad other channels easily utilized (even the report admits this). And it's not more of a "human rights violation" just because a human rights website was chosen, and I propose that their specific sampling of so-called "human rights sites" was designed specifically to give the report a human rights "spin" in an attempt to justify the premise, i.e. greater government control.
A DDOS is like cutting someone's phone line. It seems like it should be a crime, but having your website go down for a few days is now a human rights violation? Puh-lease. This stinks of a vested interest trying to increase government power by issuing fear-mongering propaganda. The majority of DDOS attacks can be mitigated fairly easily; they're more of a nuisance value.
"Human rights and independent media sites are under constant attack," said Ethan Zuckerman
What!? Absolutely blatant rubbish.
Zuckerman's team also polled more than 300 human rights and independent media sites around the world, and convinced 45, or 14% of the total, to talk about DDoS attacks.
Note the implication that the rest were "afraid" somehow to "speak out", as if to imply all of them have been hit but it's some shadowy secret. More like most the site owners had better things to do, or didn't know a DDOS from a bar of soap. The methodology of self-respondence also sounds highly flawed, I bet half of them were probably hit by plain old scripted hacks, but went and called it a DDOS because they don't know the difference. (If you've ever seen a self-reporting poll that asks users e.g. 'which version of Office (or Windows) are you running' you'll find most don't even know the difference between the Office version and the Windows version, these are the people who are being polled on their sites being DDOS'd?). There is also no control group apparently, i.e. did he measure if the incidence of attacks is higher for human rights sites compared to the general population of websites? Also, how does he define a "human rights" site, does he include e.g. pro-Islam "charity" sites?
Admittedly I haven't read the report, but given it already stinks like shit, I'd probably just get my fingers dirty.
Of course it would, who do you think owns companies - robots?
I have little doubt that she had the anxiety
Why are you so sure, you think nobody ever lied for money?
... that she might miss out on a chance to sue a big company for a whole lot of money she doesn't deserve, by feigning distress. I'm sure nobody involved thinks it's anything other than BS, but they're probably hoping Google will settle.
Right now whatever Apple says goes.
Well it is their store, so I agree with that in principle (just as it's my right to not purchase from or develop for their app store in disgust, and to complain about it loudly), because Apple's rights are your and my rights* too (for anything we might create someday). Users already have rights, sure, e.g. they may not be defrauded by Apple (for example, if Apple blocked an app after a customer has paid for it, that would be fraudulent) but I don't think that's what's happening; rather, it seems the app developer violated some of Apple's draconian and controlling rules.
* When demanding regulation (e.g. what you call "balance") people always make the mistake of thinking they're voting away "someone else's rights". In their minds, it's always "someone else" that they don't perceive could ever be them - a big company, the rich, whatever --- what people seldom seem to realize is that you cannot vote away someone else's rights without voting away your own rights too. Steve Jobs' rights to be draconian in his store, are your rights. You want to vote away Steve's rights, you cannot do it without voting away your own rights, and your children (born or unborn), and your brothers and sisters, and your parents and grandparents, and your friends rights, etc. etc., and when you or anyone you know wants to start a business and open a store, oops, you find they have run into the same crushing regulations that people asked for to curtail control freaks like Steve.
Let the market sort it out. Android is growing so incredibly quickly that they will have more apps than Apple within a year. And within five years, everyone and their dog will have app stores and it'll be a huge, free bonanza (unless someone decides they should be over-regulated).
Yes, I'm all for placing public pressure on companies to promote and behave according to such ideals ... but not by using the force of the state, just by voting with our wallets, complaining loudly, etc.
Unfortunately the First Amendment doesn't apply.
Actually it's fortunate it doesn't apply, because if you think about it, what you're asking for would mean that government would literally have the mandate to *force* private individuals to carry a message they may not want to. Having a right to freedom of speech doesn't mean that other private individuals should be required by law to carry and spread anyone else's message (even at their own cost). Apple consists of private individuals, if governments could force Apple to carry anyone's speech, they could force you and me to carry speech too. If a kid scrawled graffiti on your wall, hey, that's "speech", government should force you to leave it up. Thankfully that's not how things work.
That said, dammit Apple, you keep disappointing me on a regular basis with the closedness and the draconian control over what is and isn't allowed in your 'app store'.
Fortunately there is competition, and competing app stores and platforms are popping up like mushrooms. So I'm not too worried, app stores will be forced to remain quite open thanks to competition. Apple's attitude is already reflecting in their market growth vs the growth of others like Android, and they'll have to ease up a little or they'll keep losing share.
Assange had absolutely no reason to think that a woman he met the week before had consented to such a thing
You mean apart from the fact that she willingly climbed naked into his bed? (She must've done so if he started having sex with her as she slept.)
But there was this girl with whom I had shared an long sexual relationship, and one night it developed that I started to fuck her while she was asleep.
And in Assange's case, this woman must've gone to bed naked with him (or did he allegedly undress her while she slept too? boy this woman is a deep sleeper). If you don't want to have sex with a guy, you hardly climb naked into their bed.
If he was not trying to sidestep investigation, then why did he leave the country and refuse to return for questioning?
Now you are really just making up complete lies (and revealing your true agenda, apparently), because he at no point did he "refuse" to return for questioning; as soon as their paperwork for the request was in order, he complied fully and legally and cooperatively. He has cooperated every step of the way. He was perfectly legally allowed to leave the country. You clearly have an agenda, and clearly are lying.
But, the part you are missing is this: Assange could and should have stopped when the condom broke and the woman asked him to stop.
And the part you are missing is that this is just their story and there is no evidence that this is actually what happened. You speak as if you've assumed he is guilty, you don't even put "allegedly". Do you believe women never lie about things like this?
If my girlfriend wakes me up with a blowjob is that rape?
Sure but only if a week later, you find out she was cheating on you at the time.
Yeah, my interpretation too; davev's position seems to be that the woman is always automatically telling the truth, the man always automatically lying, and that Julian is guilty until proven innocent.
I may have used the incorrect term on 'dilation' - I'm not sure what the correct term is, but the term is irrelevant, I am right, a woman's vag is by default far too constricted for anything thicker than a pencil to enter without either a lot of force or lubrication, and sexual stimulation causes it to open wider. (So either davev doesn't have the first clue about this, or his penis is pencil-thin) ... I've been sleeping with women regularly for sixteen years and trust me, it's basically impossible to have non-forced sex with a woman unless she is awake.
Is it basically their word against his, or has he also admitted that that's what happened? Far as I can tell, he's denied their version of events. It's not rape if they're just making it up.
"... and in the second by having sex without using a condom with a woman who was asleep"
I'll refrain from making silly jokes like 'slashdot forumites probably wouldn't understand this', but do you realize that unless she's extremely heavily under the influence of narcotics, it's all but impossible to have sex with a woman who is asleep without pretty much waking her up completely in the process? (And pretty much on first penetration, because if she's asleep she won't be dilated or wet either, so you'd have to use a sizable amount of force.) Story sounds a bit fishy to me. Add to that they seemed perfectly happy and then only seemed to decide later it was 'rape', after they found out he was cheating.
And? That's why iammani didn't put them in jail, he only posted an opinion on an Internet forum.
Yes, you build up a network of contacts in the world of the most successful people. But that is important. But interacting with successful people does more than just give you "contacts"; there is inherently automatically a "mentoring" effect.
"But other researchers say the extent to which one takes advantage of the educational offerings of an institution may be more important, in the long run"
This is theoretically true at an individual level. If I think to my own days in a third-world mediocre public school and university, I would say I ultimately managed to get a good education 'in spite of' my school/university, not because of it --- but even so, I often performed very poorly (regretfully), and if I had to name THE single-biggest thing that negatively influenced my performance, I would have to say it was being surrounded by almost 100% uniformly poor-performing peers; they were stupid, they were lazy, they didn't care, learning was the least important thing imaginable, and stupidity and laziness was basically celebrated. When 99.9% of a child's peers are like that, as happened with me, it is almost impossible not to be negatively influenced and 'dragged down' to some degree.
Now, many years later, I have a baby on the way, and have to start thinking about where to send her someday. And I definitely feel that if I can afford it, I want her in one of the top-notch universities. Why? Not because I'm expecting miracles from the professors or infrastructure, but because I know she is most likely to be surrounded by a comparatively higher percentage of peers who are amongst those in society with the highest focus and motivation on hard work and success.
It is oddly seldom mentioned, but beyond parenting and teachers, I think the quality of peers that your child sits with must have a huge influence on their outcomes.
The other reason is that I indeed want my children to mingle with society's successful people, not just to build contacts, but because there is an inherent mentoring effect. Even spending a day with someone highly successful at something can make a young persons entire career. The most successful people in finance and investing, tend to have had top-notch mentors, and you can mostly only find those people in the upper echelons.
Like it or not, many of the most successful IT entrepreneurs etc. do come from backgrounds that allowed them to attend top-notch universities, and there are reasons for that.
Can children be successful in cheaper schools, sure, of course, but suddenly when parenthood looms I just think I want the statistically best chance for my kids, so they can have opportunities I never had.
I love the way that as long as you tack the word "reform" onto something, it can automatically be considered good by so many people even if you're actually making things worse. Gotta love that word. It is on one hand meaningless, and on the other politically expedient, for what kind of horrible person would be against "reforming" something?
"Why worry", says BoA, when the Fed would probably just 'bail them out', courtesy of Joe Taxpayer.
(Apologies for replying to own post) .. continued ... I'm not saying I think Bartz is doing a good job at Yahoo. Clearly Yahoo is slowly sinking. But if the shareholders are keeping her on 'anyway', then probably it means they literally don't know of any better options for who to run the company.
Yeah, then they'll REALLY be able to attract the kind of management skill you need to make Yahoo a top-notch company!
I don't follow Yahoo closely enough to know if Bartz is doing an OK job, but I do know enough to know that good IT CEO skills are extremely, extremely rare. By and large, if the skills were more commonplace, then salaries would be much lower, because CEO's would be more easily replaceable and the CEO labor market is completely and brutally a free one. If the owners are keeping a particular CEO on at such expense, it's usually because they feel that the value that person brings to the company is greater than the cost. If they didn't, they would (usually) replace the CEO. And CEO's do often get replaced when they don't perform well. In other words, the shareholders feel that if they replaced Bartz, they would lose much more than 40 million dollars a year. If you disagree with me, then why don't you (or I) apply for the job? Earn the big bucks? Approach the board and tell them you'll do the same job, cheaper? Just think, you could be earning so much money! Fact is, I'm honest enough with myself to know I'm not good enough to run such a company, I'd probably run it into the ground, and it's a great responsibility. So when people whine about executive pay, I often think, 'well instead of whining why don't you just apply for that job'? Fact is almost nobody has the skill and capability for such a job. Not only would I not be able to run Yahoo, truly honestly, I don't even know anyone who would be able to either.
Sometimes people don't deserve the pay and are still kept on too long, Carly Fiorina at HP comes to mind. But by and large, it's a totally free labor market. Shareholders are people like you or I. If you owned a company, and you had to pick from two people who were identically capable of running your company, but one charged much less - naturally you would choose the cheaper one.
That's because there are four primary 'poles', not two as the left-right system implies and distorts our thoughts on the system; the 'right' in the US are typically higher on economic liberty but low on social liberty; 'liberals' vice-versa. In reality the best system is one which has high social and economic liberty.