RMS did the project a disservice which led to the current "lack of credit". Selecting the nerdy name of Gnu. Cute joke, lousy marketing tool. Linus picked an even worse marketing name Freax, but changed it early on. If RMS had the marketable name and Linus had stuck with Freax then the OS would be marketed under the alternitive name. Now it's reached a stage beyond marketing. A Word's definition is ultimatly determined by it's usage by the people, and the people have decided that Linux has two meanings. A Kernel developed by Linus Torvalds and an OS that uses that Kernel. Bitching about it will no more change that second definition than bitching about the usage of "hacker" will change it's commonly accepted definition of a computer criminal.
" Tens, if not hundred of thousands of Laotian civilians were killed in U.S. bombing runs over Laos" Did you pull that range of numbers out of your ass, or off some leftwing web site? The figures I seen most often for the Laotian war was 50 to 60 thousand dead about a third killed by laotians fighting laotians, and about two thirds killed by the NVA invaders.
"The U.S. "war effort" in SE Asia was a misguided and unjust colonial war" You are correct about it being a colonial war, but dead wrong about which side was the Imperial power. The Hanoi regime not only subjegated the southern half of Viet Nam, but also reduced the Pathet Lao to a puppet government, and after the 1979 invasion removed the even more deplorable Khemer Rouge, turned Cambodia into a virtual Colony of Viet Nam.
"This was not a communist revolution, it was a war of liberation for the Viet-cong" The Viet Cong never recovered from the losses sustained in the Tet Offensive in 1968. From then on the brunt of the war fell on the NVA either fighting as NVA units, or as "replacements" in Viet Cong units. It wasn't a revoulation or a war of liberation, it was a military conquest by an expanionist power in Hanoi.
Since the vast majority of US Bombing was aimed at the Ho Chi Minh trail, a "stone age" road that met the needs of the NVA rather than serving as infrastructure for the Lationan peoples, the "case" that it's America's fault that Laos is poor dosen't hold water. Laos was a poor nation before the war, and likely would have remained poor even if the Hanoi regime hadn't involved them in thier "war of liberation" by using thier territory to provide operational and logistic support for the war in South Viet Nam.
A Far better case can be made that if the US had prevailed the Lation government would be far less repressive than the current regime. The repressive nature of the Pathet Lao was known 40 years ago, befor the first bomb fell, but that didn't stop the Left from aiding thier rise to power by underminning the US war effort in SE Asia.
" Execution of prisoners of war is a war crime, so you couldn't have done it anyway, at least not without deserving the gallows."
Rudolf Hess was Captured in 1941 after flying to Scotland in an attempt to arrange for the UK's surrender in World War II, and was held as a prisoner of war. Many of the remainder of the Nazi leaders were captured by military personal and were Prisoners of war until they were charged with War Crimes.
So should the allied powers be considered criminals for trying "Prisoners of War" at Nuemberg?
Being a Prisoner of War does NOT mean that you can't be tried for War Crimes, and using civilians as hostages is a war crime.
Now I don't have to dream about having that fully restored 1967 Cobra 427 roadster I can't afford.
I can just go out and steal it because people "deserve" a luxary item and are "entittled" to take it if they can't afford it.
Do you have any luxary items that I "deserve" and are now have the "right" to steal?
Re:Supes threw the fight already (plus, the stats)
on
Superhero Smackdown
·
· Score: 2
"Now, we all know Batman would win. He's got a big ol' kryptonite medallion, that Superman gave him himself"
Superman also knows Batman has the kryptonite meaning he can be prepared for it when he goes into battle with the Bat. Luther, Brainiac, and other villans thought a little kryptonite would ensure they could defeat Superman, but Superman won everytime.
"Why the hell did it require a harder whack than the other keys to function properly?"
To make it harder to accedentaly stop a program that took 5 minutes to load. There were even third party kits to add this useful "feature" to an Apple II.
" Can anyone put forward a well-reasoned argument why the Internet should be exempt to sales tax?"
Can you put togather a real reasoned argument why you shouldn't have to pay Income Taxes to a state you don't live in? Both you and the Online Merchant aren't allowed to vote in the state you don't live in. Both you and the online merchant recieve no services from a state you don't live in.
Why should a state that I don't live in, have never visited, recieve zero services from, and have no representation in the government of, be allowed to pass a law that compells me to become an unpaid public servant (tax collector) for that state? Didn't we pass some admendment to the US Constitution that banned "invoulantary servitude" ?
"In any case, I see taxes as one of the prices one pays for living in a civilized society, so I see no problem taxing online folk at an equitable level."
Do you have any problem with being forced to pay personal income taxes to states that you don't live in? After all you recive the same services (none) from those states as the online merchants will recive in return for collecting the sales taxes.
" Please take a complimentary course on "social ethics and justice" and call ME in the morning."
ROFLMAO Only a rabid leftist would dream of naming a course "social ethics and justice"! "Socalist Ethics" would be a better description of what to expect in that class, even tho' the term "Socalist Ethics" is an oxymoron.
Expect a drawn rant of hatred directed at anyone who has more than the neurotic teaching the course, along with his wish that armed force be used to enforce his will on the population. That seems to be the norm for what is laughably called "social ethics and justice"
"huge organizations designed to aggregate money with all the rights and abilities as citizens. how can the interests of individuals even come close to being recognized in an arena like that?"
What "Rights" The "Right" to control a company that you haven't invested one red cent in?
The "Right" to sieze profits earned by others to fund some scheme that benifits you?
The "Right" to destroy a company you hate because they have commited the "crime" of being sucessful?
More often than not the indiviuals who own the companies are defending thier rights against leftist activists intrested in using others properity as a means of aquiring political power.
"Ideally yes - practically no, because absence of regulation(government interference) tends to specifically benefit interested parties. If you doubt look at how the Reagan deregulation boom, designed to limit government influence, benefitted special interests(which is government influencing policy)."
If you define "special interests" narrowly as private companies, then deregulation benifts special intrests, however I consider groups wanting privillages for any segment of the population at the expense of the remainder to be a special intrest. Liberal activist groups are also special intrest groups despite the self applied labels of serving the public good. Removing regulatory powers from the government removes one special intrest groups ability to "rent" that power to attack another group. I want to remove a buisness's power to use the government to attack another company, or to protect it's failing buisiness model just as much as I want to remove some leftist group's ability to use the government to force thier agenda on companies.
"you don't really believe in making collective democratic decisions to protect the public good"
As a matter of fact I don't beleave in that hogwash. If the "public" decides that your existance is harmful to it in a "democratic" vote, will you dumbly walk into a death camp to protect the "public good"
I Beleave in Rights, rights that no government, dictatorial or democratic can undermine. Socrates was just as dead after being condemed to death by an Athenian mob as he would have been if a tyrant had ordered his murder. Africian Americans rights weren't protected by the governments in the Southern United States where a majority of the citizens made a "collective democratic decision to protect the public good" by shitting on anyone with the wrong skin color.
Public finicing amd campaign "reform" is nothing more than a brazen attempt to disarm the chosen victims of a means of defending themselves from the depradations of power hungry leftists who are playing the same game the Nazis and the Racists of the old south played. Stir up hatred against a minority (In this case the wealthy) and use that hatred as an excuse why the "protectors of the public good" (A mask worn by Stalin, Hitler, and the Klan) should be granted powers to protect the citizens from the "evil" oppressors.
A Government that has the powers to shit on the wealthy, or Blacks, or Jews, or any other group to "protect the public good" also has the power to shit on me or you if the public (or thier self appointed spokesmen) decide that my enslavement or your murder is in the "public good". Anytime you are tempted to grant the government powers to attack someone you don't like remember you are also granting the government the power to attack you if the gang in power this year decides it dosen't like you.
We have an artcle about the government using government sites as a means of aiding the reelection of incumbments, and you want to ban anyone but the government from posting information about the canidates?
I Can't think of a better way to raise the reelction rate of incumbments all the way up to 100% or to insure that the present monopoly on power enjoyed by the Republicratic party that pretends to be two partys is in place forever.
I currently have the right to check "No" on the section of my Income tax forms to prevent that dollar of matching funds from going to presidental canidates, and I allways check the "No" box to prevent canidates that I disaprove of from benifiting from my work.
Shrinking the powers of the government includes severe limits on it's ability to raise money through taxiation. Again I favor going to the root of the problem, to limit the governments powers to raise the money in the first place, rather than attempting to limit the use of the funds after they are taken from the citizens by threat of armed force.
Last of all How are Big business and those special interest groups going to force me to obey them if they can't purchase those favors from a government that no longer has the powers to sell? Microsoft can't send armed men out to force me to buy Office . Peta can't send armed agents out to remove the meat from my freezer. Greenpeace can't send armed agents out to sieze my car if they don't like it's milage.
" the only real fix I see is public campaign financing"
Public finicing will force me to contribute to canidates that I not only disagree with, but ones whom I find morally repugnant. If a Klansman, a Communist or a Nazi wishes to run for office they have that right. I have the right to refuse to contribute to thier campaign in addition to refusing to vote for them now. Public finicing will strip me of the right to refuse to contribute to canidates who I disagree with.
The high cost of political campaigns is a symptom of an illness, not the illness itself. Most contributions are made for one of two reasons, somebody wants to use the Government to fuck somebody or somebody wants to avoid getting fucked by a special intrest group. Limit the powers of the government and the reasons people donate the money goes away. You don't see multimillion dollar campaigns for dogcatchers because dogcatchers have little power. Limit the powers of government and the size of the campaigns will immeditally shrink.
My, My, You do seem to have a bigoted view of Texas. The people of Texas are a better sample of the American people as a whole than the liberal elitists of a few cities and campuses.
In 1861 when faced with Civil war the US Armed forces quickly split in two with a large segment of the military opting to join the Rebel cause. If the military were ordered to put down a broad based coalitation fighting for traditional American values it would undergo a similar fate. The weapons are needed to launch the rebellion. The US military is composed of citizens who tend to be a little more conservative than the general population but they do represent a cross section of the American people and share the same concerns as the population in general.
Do you honestly think that laws will stop criminals from aquiring them, or that it will stop honest citizens from wanting a means of defending themselves from the preditors? When Alchol was made illegal people didn't stop drinking. When drugs were made illegal people didn't stop doing drugs. In Both cases two groups profited at the expense of honest citizens. The Government grew gained more power and organized crime grew rich. Outlawing guns will just be a repeat of the boondogles of outlawing alchol and drugs.
There is also another point about gun ownership. The Second admendment isn't primarly concerned with hunting or protecting settlers fron Indians, or repelling an invasion. It is there as the ultimate check in a system of checks and balances. It was approved by men who had launced a revoulation to protect thier freedoms as insurance that the American people would always have the means of launching another revoulation if the government should ever become a tyrantical.
" I think society needs to reshuffle its priorities"
No, You need to reshuffle your priorties. There is nothing stopping you from providing a free service to site that aren't compliant. If you think this is so important then you can offer to bring commerical sites up to accesibility standards and maintain them at no cost to the site owner.
Of Course using your time and money will require more of a comitment than taking the easy way out and forcing others to meet some social goal that you claim is desirable.
"a Cyber-ADA needs to be passed by Congress to define how (and whether) the handicapped shall access cyberspace."
Sure, and we can include a provision in the law forcing the staff of the Community College of Baltimore County to learn to code web pages and to update any non compliant pages at no cost to the site owner.
I Assume you will support this addition to the Web ADA, since you don't seem to have any qualms about the use in force to achive some social goal that you decide is desirable.
No they are still a subsidy. If the grant results in nothing, the taxpayer is out the funds provided by the grant, and loses like any private invester. If the grant will result in a windfall for the company the taxpayer sees no return on his investment, the grant is repayed, but the funds will likely be "reinvested" in another grant untill the money is lost on a bad "investment"
It will cease being a subsidy when the taxpayer recives the same benifts as a private invester, that is some kind of return on a sucessful investment. This can take one of two forms. Payments to the treasury out of royalities, or the method I prefer a reduction in the life of the patent. IE, if 50% of the development cost is borne by the taxpayer, the life of the patent is reduced by 50%.
Do not make the mistake of assuming that the Terrorists share the motivatians of Western Students. They have far more in common with Westerners who bomb abortian clinics and seek to ban teaching evoulation than the leftist protesters.
The infant moratality rates in Afghanistan soard after women were cut off from medical care under the Taliban, but that was "Allah's will". Neither the Taliban or Al Qaeda gave a flying fuck what thier policies did for the quality of life for the people. Thier concern was to insure that the people weren't seduced by the temptations that would lead to Hell, to protect the next life, not this one.
Al Qaeda's problem with the Royal Family is that some of it's members use the money to lead "wanton impure lives", that the royal women change out of thier Islamic dress on Planes flying out of the Kingdom, that the princes drink alcohol and chase the "western harlots" while they are outside the Kingdom.
The Shi'a sect developed out a dispute over the sucession after the death of Mohammed. Some Muslams wanted a hereditary sucession, and since Mohammed didn't have any sons they favored his son in law Ali. The third Caliph Uthman was assassinated paving the way for Ali to become the fourth Caliph. Ali proved to be inept and was soon ousted and killed. The Shi'as refused to recognize the Caliphs after Ali as legitimate rulers, and developed into a mystical sect with violent tendencies. Historically thier violance has been directed at the majority Sunni Muslams, though one Shi'a sect the Hashassins were active in murdering Christians during the Crusades, and the English word Assassian is derived from thier name. Shi'a groups begain showing anti-western attitudes during the Iranian revoulation, and they are firmly opposed to Isreal, but in the long run they will return to thier ancient fued with the Sunni Muslams.
The Wahhabist cult was founded in the 1700's CE by Mohammed Wahhab. His close associtatian with the Saud family helped them conquer most of the tribes in Arabia, and the Wahhab family played a major role in the founding of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Wahhabism became the offical religion of the Saudi Kingdom as a result of this partnership. Modern travel made it easier for Muslam pilgrams to make the journey to Mecca which is firmly in the hands of the Wahhabist cult, and this caused the most Pisus Muslams to come into contact with the cult leading to a slow spread of Wahhabist ideas early in the 20th Century.
The Sudden rise in Oil prices in the 1970's gave the Wahhabist Cult the Money to engage in charities and to establish religous schools from Pakistan to California. These have resulted in an explosive growth in the Wahhabist cult.
Saudi apoligists are fond of pointing out that The Saudi Government has condemed the actiction of Bin Laden. I View it in the same light as a Nazi condemming Himler for the death camps. The Camps were an inevitable result of the Bigoted Nazi idelogy, and Al Qaeda is an inveitable result of the Bigotted Wahhabist tennants. Even if we wipe out Al Qaeda, a new Terrorist group will emerge from the teachings of Wahhabism.
Allmost all TV shows, movies and songs are commerical products whos primary intent is to make money for the "artists" who produce it and have as much "artistic" content as other commerical products like automobles, or toaster ovens. The list of "whores" also includes the avant garde "artists" who crank out pseduo-art aimed at the critics who control the grant money instead of the general public. Frankly I'm tired of the number of hacks who want to cash in on the title of artist without having a shread of talent to back the claim up. Art has become a dying phenomia, largely because the talentless whiners recieve the support that true artists used to recieve.
Slashdot Mirror
RMS did the project a disservice which led to the current "lack of credit". Selecting the nerdy name of Gnu. Cute joke, lousy marketing tool. Linus picked an even worse marketing name Freax, but changed it early on. If RMS had the marketable name and Linus had stuck with Freax then the OS would be marketed under the alternitive name. Now it's reached a stage beyond marketing. A Word's definition is ultimatly determined by it's usage by the people, and the people have decided that Linux has two meanings. A Kernel developed by Linus Torvalds and an OS that uses that Kernel. Bitching about it will no more change that second definition than bitching about the usage of "hacker" will change it's commonly accepted definition of a computer criminal.
" Tens, if not hundred of thousands of Laotian civilians were killed in U.S. bombing runs over Laos" Did you pull that range of numbers out of your ass, or off some leftwing web site? The figures I seen most often for the Laotian war was 50 to 60 thousand dead about a third killed by laotians fighting laotians, and about two thirds killed by the NVA invaders.
"The U.S. "war effort" in SE Asia was a misguided and unjust colonial war" You are correct about it being a colonial war, but dead wrong about which side was the Imperial power. The Hanoi regime not only subjegated the southern half of Viet Nam, but also reduced the Pathet Lao to a puppet government, and after the 1979 invasion removed the even more deplorable Khemer Rouge, turned Cambodia into a virtual Colony of Viet Nam.
"This was not a communist revolution, it was a war of liberation for the Viet-cong" The Viet Cong never recovered from the losses sustained in the Tet Offensive in 1968. From then on the brunt of the war fell on the NVA either fighting as NVA units, or as "replacements" in Viet Cong units. It wasn't a revoulation or a war of liberation, it was a military conquest by an expanionist power in Hanoi.
Since the vast majority of US Bombing was aimed at the Ho Chi Minh trail, a "stone age" road that met the needs of the NVA rather than serving as infrastructure for the Lationan peoples, the "case" that it's America's fault that Laos is poor dosen't hold water. Laos was a poor nation before the war, and likely would have remained poor even if the Hanoi regime hadn't involved them in thier "war of liberation" by using thier territory to provide operational and logistic support for the war in South Viet Nam.
A Far better case can be made that if the US had prevailed the Lation government would be far less repressive than the current regime. The repressive nature of the Pathet Lao was known 40 years ago, befor the first bomb fell, but that didn't stop the Left from aiding thier rise to power by underminning the US war effort in SE Asia.
so you couldn't have done it anyway, at least
not without deserving the gallows."
Rudolf Hess was Captured in 1941 after flying to Scotland in an attempt to arrange for the UK's surrender in World War II, and was held as a prisoner of war. Many of the remainder of the Nazi leaders were captured by military personal and were Prisoners of war until they were charged with War Crimes.
So should the allied powers be considered criminals for trying "Prisoners of War" at Nuemberg?
Being a Prisoner of War does NOT mean that you can't be tried for War Crimes, and using civilians as hostages is a war crime.
Now I don't have to dream about having that fully restored 1967 Cobra 427 roadster I can't afford.
I can just go out and steal it because people "deserve" a luxary item and are "entittled" to take it if they can't afford it.
Do you have any luxary items that I "deserve" and are now have the "right" to steal?
Superman also knows Batman has the kryptonite meaning he can be prepared for it when he goes into battle with the Bat. Luther, Brainiac, and other villans thought a little kryptonite would ensure they could defeat Superman, but Superman won everytime.
To make it harder to accedentaly stop a program that took 5 minutes to load. There were even third party kits to add this useful "feature" to an Apple II.
Can you put togather a real reasoned argument why you shouldn't have to pay Income Taxes to a state you don't live in? Both you and the Online Merchant aren't allowed to vote in the state you don't live in. Both you and the online merchant recieve no services from a state you don't live in.
Why should a state that I don't live in, have never visited, recieve zero services from, and have no representation in the government of, be allowed to pass a law that compells me to become an unpaid public servant (tax collector) for that state? Didn't we pass some admendment to the US Constitution that banned "invoulantary servitude" ?
Do you have any problem with being forced to pay personal income taxes to states that you don't live in? After all you recive the same services (none) from those states as the online merchants will recive in return for collecting the sales taxes.
ROFLMAO
Only a rabid leftist would dream of naming a course "social ethics and justice"! "Socalist Ethics" would be a better description of what to expect in that class, even tho' the term "Socalist Ethics" is an oxymoron.
Expect a drawn rant of hatred directed at anyone who has more than the neurotic teaching the course, along with his wish that armed force be used to enforce his will on the population. That seems to be the norm for what is laughably called "social ethics and justice"
What "Rights"
The "Right" to control a company that you haven't invested one red cent in?
The "Right" to sieze profits earned by others to fund some scheme that benifits you?
The "Right" to destroy a company you hate because they have commited the "crime" of being sucessful?
More often than not the indiviuals who own the companies are defending thier rights against leftist activists intrested in using others properity as a means of aquiring political power.
If you define "special interests" narrowly as private companies, then deregulation benifts special intrests, however I consider groups wanting privillages for any segment of the population at the expense of the remainder to be a special intrest. Liberal activist groups are also special intrest groups despite the self applied labels of serving the public good. Removing regulatory powers from the government removes one special intrest groups ability to "rent" that power to attack another group. I want to remove a buisness's power to use the government to attack another company, or to protect it's failing buisiness model just as much as I want to remove some leftist group's ability to use the government to force thier agenda on companies.
As a matter of fact I don't beleave in that hogwash. If the "public" decides that your existance is harmful to it in a "democratic" vote, will you dumbly walk into a death camp to protect the "public good"
I Beleave in Rights, rights that no government, dictatorial or democratic can undermine. Socrates was just as dead after being condemed to death by an Athenian mob as he would have been if a tyrant had ordered his murder. Africian Americans rights weren't protected by the governments in the Southern United States where a majority of the citizens made a "collective democratic decision to protect the public good" by shitting on anyone with the wrong skin color.
Public finicing amd campaign "reform" is nothing more than a brazen attempt to disarm the chosen victims of a means of defending themselves from the depradations of power hungry leftists who are playing the same game the Nazis and the Racists of the old south played. Stir up hatred against a minority (In this case the wealthy) and use that hatred as an excuse why the "protectors of the public good" (A mask worn by Stalin, Hitler, and the Klan) should be granted powers to protect the citizens from the "evil" oppressors.
A Government that has the powers to shit on the wealthy, or Blacks, or Jews, or any other group to "protect the public good" also has the power to shit on me or you if the public (or thier self appointed spokesmen) decide that my enslavement or your murder is in the "public good". Anytime you are tempted to grant the government powers to attack someone you don't like remember you are also granting the government the power to attack you if the gang in power this year decides it dosen't like you.
I Can't think of a better way to raise the reelction rate of incumbments all the way up to 100% or to insure that the present monopoly on power enjoyed by the Republicratic party that pretends to be two partys is in place forever.
I currently have the right to check "No" on the section of my Income tax forms to prevent that dollar of matching funds from going to presidental canidates, and I allways check the "No" box to prevent canidates that I disaprove of from benifiting from my work.
Shrinking the powers of the government includes severe limits on it's ability to raise money through taxiation. Again I favor going to the root of the problem, to limit the governments powers to raise the money in the first place, rather than attempting to limit the use of the funds after they are taken from the citizens by threat of armed force.
Last of all How are Big business and those special interest groups going to force me to obey them if they can't purchase those favors from a government that no longer has the powers to sell? Microsoft can't send armed men out to force me to buy Office . Peta can't send armed agents out to remove the meat from my freezer. Greenpeace can't send armed agents out to sieze my car if they don't like it's milage.
Public finicing will force me to contribute to canidates that I not only disagree with, but ones whom I find morally repugnant. If a Klansman, a Communist or a Nazi wishes to run for office they have that right. I have the right to refuse to contribute to thier campaign in addition to refusing to vote for them now. Public finicing will strip me of the right to refuse to contribute to canidates who I disagree with.
The high cost of political campaigns is a symptom of an illness, not the illness itself. Most contributions are made for one of two reasons, somebody wants to use the Government to fuck somebody or somebody wants to avoid getting fucked by a special intrest group. Limit the powers of the government and the reasons people donate the money goes away. You don't see multimillion dollar campaigns for dogcatchers because dogcatchers have little power. Limit the powers of government and the size of the campaigns will immeditally shrink.
You do seem to have a bigoted view of Texas. The people of Texas are a better sample of the American people as a whole than the liberal elitists of a few cities and campuses.
In 1861 when faced with Civil war the US Armed forces quickly split in two with a large segment of the military opting to join the Rebel cause. If the military were ordered to put down a broad based coalitation fighting for traditional American values it would undergo a similar fate. The weapons are needed to launch the rebellion. The US military is composed of citizens who tend to be a little more conservative than the general population but they do represent a cross section of the American people and share the same concerns as the population in general.
There is also another point about gun ownership. The Second admendment isn't primarly concerned with hunting or protecting settlers fron Indians, or repelling an invasion. It is there as the ultimate check in a system of checks and balances. It was approved by men who had launced a revoulation to protect thier freedoms as insurance that the American people would always have the means of launching another revoulation if the government should ever become a tyrantical.
No, those of you who don't like the NRA are reacting like someone who wants to ban computers to get rid of spam or music piricy.
No, You need to reshuffle your priorties. There is nothing stopping you from providing a free service to site that aren't compliant. If you think this is so important then you can offer to bring commerical sites up to accesibility standards and maintain them at no cost to the site owner.
Of Course using your time and money will require more of a comitment than taking the easy way out and forcing others to meet some social goal that you claim is desirable.
Sure, and we can include a provision in the law forcing the staff of the Community College of Baltimore County to learn to code web pages and to update any non compliant pages at no cost to the site owner.
I Assume you will support this addition to the Web ADA, since you don't seem to have any qualms about the use in force to achive some social goal that you decide is desirable.
It will cease being a subsidy when the taxpayer recives the same benifts as a private invester, that is some kind of return on a sucessful investment. This can take one of two forms. Payments to the treasury out of royalities, or the method I prefer a reduction in the life of the patent. IE, if 50% of the development cost is borne by the taxpayer, the life of the patent is reduced by 50%.
The infant moratality rates in Afghanistan soard after women were cut off from medical care under the Taliban, but that was "Allah's will". Neither the Taliban or Al Qaeda gave a flying fuck what thier policies did for the quality of life for the people. Thier concern was to insure that the people weren't seduced by the temptations that would lead to Hell, to protect the next life, not this one.
Al Qaeda's problem with the Royal Family is that some of it's members use the money to lead "wanton impure lives", that the royal women change out of thier Islamic dress on Planes flying out of the Kingdom, that the princes drink alcohol and chase the "western harlots" while they are outside the Kingdom.
The Wahhabist cult was founded in the 1700's CE by Mohammed Wahhab. His close associtatian with the Saud family helped them conquer most of the tribes in Arabia, and the Wahhab family played a major role in the founding of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Wahhabism became the offical religion of the Saudi Kingdom as a result of this partnership. Modern travel made it easier for Muslam pilgrams to make the journey to Mecca which is firmly in the hands of the Wahhabist cult, and this caused the most Pisus Muslams to come into contact with the cult leading to a slow spread of Wahhabist ideas early in the 20th Century.
The Sudden rise in Oil prices in the 1970's gave the Wahhabist Cult the Money to engage in charities and to establish religous schools from Pakistan to California. These have resulted in an explosive growth in the Wahhabist cult.
Saudi apoligists are fond of pointing out that The Saudi Government has condemed the actiction of Bin Laden. I View it in the same light as a Nazi condemming Himler for the death camps. The Camps were an inevitable result of the Bigoted Nazi idelogy, and Al Qaeda is an inveitable result of the Bigotted Wahhabist tennants. Even if we wipe out Al Qaeda, a new Terrorist group will emerge from the teachings of Wahhabism.
Allmost all TV shows, movies and songs are commerical products whos primary intent is to make money for the "artists" who produce it and have as much "artistic" content as other commerical products like automobles, or toaster ovens. The list of "whores" also includes the avant garde "artists" who crank out pseduo-art aimed at the critics who control the grant money instead of the general public. Frankly I'm tired of the number of hacks who want to cash in on the title of artist without having a shread of talent to back the claim up. Art has become a dying phenomia, largely because the talentless whiners recieve the support that true artists used to recieve.