You won't get a validation of your attempt to twist reality. You won't get a moral sanction for your immoral ideas.
Go ahead and call yourself Napoleon all you want, all you'll get is laughter from me, not a validation that you are Napoleon.
When you ARE a facist and someone calls you one, it's stating a fact, not admitting defeat. Renounce Facist Economics, and I'll quit refering to you as a Facist.
Re:I understand your point howwever
on
Spy Fly
·
· Score: 2
"it was the USA who used the bomb first"
So were we susposed to invade Japan? Any idea of what that would have entailed? Based on what we saw at Iwo Jima and Okinawa we had estimates of over 1 Million US Injured and wounded in the proposed invasion. Estimates made by the Generals who were planning it. These weren't scare tatics to advocate the Bomb instead of an Invasion, the estimates were made by men who didn't know the bomb existed. Japanese dead would have numbered in the Millions.
Or we could have continue to tighten the Blockade and waited to starve the Japanese into surrender. Hundreds of thousands dead of a famine if they didn't hold out too long, Millions if the hard liners retained control.
Either of these options would have entailed ignoring that Japan had an Atomic Bomb Program, and we had no way of knowing if they were months or years away from being able to Nuke us.
"I dont know how many thousands of these nuclear bombs, and of unbelieveable power, what was the point?"
Surrivibility of a deterent after a first strike. In order to insure that if the vast majority of your nuclear weapons were destroyed in a surprise attack, you would have enough left to inflict revenge and still have some as a deterent against a third party. After the 1960's the Cold War was a three way struggle with both the USSR and The USA having to watch China also armed with Nukes.
If you have 200 Nukes and 95% are destroyed you only have 10 left for retribution and detering the third nation. If you have 2000 Nukes and 5% surrive a first strike you have 100 left.
The game was never Blow every thing up 20 times, it was insuring that if we suffered a second Pearl Harbor we would be able to blow enough stuff up one time to make it more trouble to attack us than it was worth.
Re:Who said we'd spend 0 dollars on defense?
on
Spy Fly
·
· Score: 2
Tech Toys are not going to solve the problems plauging the schools. It dosen't matter how good the tools are if you don't have teachers that inspire students, and you can't buy inspiration. Teachers are leaving the schools in droves, not because of pay, not because of lack of computers but because of frustation that they aren't allowed to teach.
During the Civil Rights era the idea grew that there was a "Right" to an education. There is NO right to a tax payer supported education. That is a privillege to be earned. Dumping the notion of a "Right" to a tax payer supported education will allow the schools to dump the worst trouble makers who don't intend to learn any thing, and won't cost a cent.
Money won't solve the problem of political groups pushing their agenda in the public school system. Scince has been watered down so the Fundementalists won't be offended. History has been watered down so a number of groups on the right and left won't be offended. Every thing else has been watered down so some dummy won't have his esteem hurt when he gets a failing grade.
More toys won't solve the gang problems many schools have. That would involve tossing gangsters out where they can't prey on other students.
Money won't return control of the classroom to a teacher who has to deal with "little angels" whose parents think they can do no wrong and are ready to sue at the drop of a hat, unless it's spent on lawyers instead of equipment.
Work on returning control of the class room to the teachers, on rewarding students who do bother learning, on penalizing students who don't learn, on getting politics out of the classroom, and after you solve those problems, then come back and talk to me about paying 5 times as much in School taxes as I'm paying now.
Re:Everyones nightmare
on
Spy Fly
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
"What good is spending 350-400 billion a year on the military if you only spend 20 billion a year on public schools?"
Whats the good of having a well educated population that is unable to defend itself? Some power mad asshole decides "Oh boy! Suckers ripe for the plucking!"
Why do you assume that throwing money at schools will magicly cause students to become more intrested in learning than in the next album by their favorite band, or if their favorite team will make it to the Super Bowl, or if they can get some good pot this weekend, or if they will get a piece of ass or......
Re:This technology is evil
on
Spy Fly
·
· Score: 2
"So you believe the atomic bomb SHOULD have been created? are YOU really that stupid?"
The United States knew That Nazi Germany had an Atomic Bomb program, but didn't know how far along it was. It was also known that the first nation to develop the bomb would win the war, even if they were on the verge of defeat. Considering Hitler's goals, it would have been pretty fucking stupid to take a chance that Hitler would get the Bomb first.
The USA also knew that the USSR had had a Bomb program but didn't know how far along it's program was. Considering the expanionist goals of Stalin, it would have been pretty fucking stupid to take a chance that Stalin would get the Bomb first.
The USA suspected that the Japanese Empire had an Atomic Bomb Program, and it was confirmed on May 14th, 1945 when the German U-Boat U234 surrended after the European war ended. The Boat had 54 Kilos of Uranium Dioxide, Papers from the Nazi Bomb Program, The Two Japanese Officers who oversaw the shipment had labeled the Uranium Dioxide as U235 (Weapons grade). The USA also found out that there were two Japanese Subs that were loaded with Uranium Dioxide, which was bound for Japan. Considering the nature of the Imperial Japanese Government it would have been pretty fucking stupid to take a chance that they would get the bomb first.
In the 1940's it wasn't a question of IF an Atomic Bomb should be developed, it was a question of WHO was going to get the damn thing first, and you better be glad that Hesinberg blew the calculations on Critical Mass leading to a cutback in the Nazi Program or it could well have been Hitler getting the Bomb first. You better be glad that Japanese program was hampered by problems getting ahold of Uranium because they might have won the race, and you'd be hearing about Los Angles and San Francisco instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The Japanese Program did involve some Ironies. It's existance likely played a part in the decession to use the American Bombs. The Uranium Dioxide that was intended for the Japanese Program was delivered to Oakridge in May 1945. The Oakridge plant would have taken about a week to process 54 kilos of Uranium Dioxide into half a kilo of U235, so the U235 that was intended for the Japanese program was delivered to Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945. (along with additional U235 provided by the USA)
" Hey, you're the one who has the god complex, here, not me"
Which one of us wants to assume god like control over the economy? Which one of us is the power hungry fuck that wants to control others lives in the economic sphere?
The General usage of Libertarian concerns following the politics of the Libertarian party. You are the one ignoring general usage in your dishonest attempt to portray yourself as something you are not. Since your movement generally favors "truth in advertising" laws I suggest you apply them to your self, and stop the false advertising of economic facism as Libertarian.
" As an aside, Webster's definition of Libertarian: 1 : an advocate of the doctrine of free will 2 a : a person who upholds the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty especially of thought and action b capitalized : a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles "
Care to explain How your concept of an economy planed by elitist leftists deciding what's best for all fits in with "the doctrine of free will" that you intend to deny to owners of properity? How central planning fits in with "the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty"?
The very Concept of a Libertarian who advocates state control of the economy is neurotic, and an attempt to evade reality. You are advocating a facist economic system, but have some delusion that applying a diferent label to it somehow magicly transforms you into something other than a facist.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck. You are quacking Facism, and no matter how hard you try you to hide that reality from yourself, it won't turn a facist duck into a Libertarian swan.
" You just don't like you oppressor to be elected - you want to be a rich boy's bitch instead, that's fine with me"
Intresting that you use the word "rich" the same way a Klansman uses the word "Nigger" or a Nazi uses the word "Jew". You are just another bigot, someone who hates an entire group of people rather than judging it's members on their own merit. When I stood up against discrimination against Blacks I was labeled a "Nigger Lover", and now If I stand up for the rights of another minority I'm labeled a "rich boy's bitch" by someone with the same mentality as the Klansmen that call me a "Nigger Lover". Bigots calling me names dosen't prevent me from standing up for the rights of a minority that the Bigot wants to discriminate against. I'll stand up against Bigots elected to discrimanate against the wealthy, just like I stood up the Bigots elected to discriminate against Blacks.
"I'm a Libertarian Leftist, deal with it"
I've dealt with that several times by pointing out that you aren't fooling me by mislabeling yourself, that you aren't fooling others by mislabeling your self. You are only fooling yourself, and the way you keep insisting on applying the oxymoronic term to yourself reminds me of a comic movie where an inmate in a "funny farm" keeps insisting that he is Napoleon. All it does is perserve a self illusion that no one but "Napoleon" beleaves.
"you don't actually challenge any of my arguments."
Why do you think I have any intrest in elevating whatever absurd nonsense you feel like spouting into a subject worthy of debate? You made some claims, I'll leave it up to others to decide how worthy those claims are, but I will not help you legitimize them by raising them to the level of a subject worth debating.
You can proclaim you are a god, but it won't make you one, the same holds for your attempt to hijack the word Libertarian.
In the 19th Century the word "Liberal" ment someone who beleaved in freedom from state controls. In the 20th Century Statists hijacked the word for political purposes and are ready to toss it away now that Liberal dosen't confuse people anymore, and are trying to pull the same scam on the word "Libertarian" which was coined for the ideas that Liberal represented 100 years ago.
The Economic system you described is the one that was used in Italy in from 1919 to 1945. Facism is the term the former Socalist Mussolini used for his economic system. You are a Facist, and a dishonest one that won't admit it Maybe you're fooling yourself but you aren't fooling anyone else.
BTW your admission that yo use words to mean anything you want them to was a mistake. Now it's apparent that nothing you say is trustworthy
Yawn, Libertarian == personal AND economic freedom. Planned Economy == Authoritarian economic system. Double Think == The ability to hold two contradictory ideas at the same time. Orwell also stated that it ammounted to protective stupidity.
So which is it, are you too stupid to see the contradictions involved in being a Libertarian who beleaves in a planed economy, or a con artist trying to convince others that you are no different than thugs like Hitler and Stalin by tacking a Libertarian label on an Authoritarian economic system.
A Planed economy involes forcing people to obey YOUR will in the economic sphere. So Mr Planned Economy which economic model are you planning on enforcing at the point of a gun? The Stalinist model where you openly steal private properity, or the sneakier facist model where you allow meaningless ownership to be retained as long as your orders are followed? Which flavor of economic statist is hiding under the oxymoronic Libertarian Leftist label? Facist or Stalinist?
"To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all" from the GPL Preamble
The FSF has failed to take the chilling effect of an unlicensed unenforced patent into consideration. As long as Red Hat and SELinux don't enforce patents on GPLed software they are in compliance with the GPL, but the danger that the patent could be enforced at some future date makes it risky to make a derritive work based on patented GPL software, or even to redistrubite it. The practice clearly goes against the spirit of the GPL.
The GPL needs to be modified so that there is a ban on including any patented code unless it also includes a royality free license with redistrubition rights. Simply refraining from enforcing patent rights (for now) does nothing to insure that users will retain the right to redistrubite and modify in the future.
"Patents directly nullify this - with SELinux I can't modify it and make my own distro, or take the good bits of the code and use it in my own GPL project... making SELinux essentially proprietary."
Not entirely true. As long as SELinux refrains from enforcing the patent or collecting royalities you can make your own distro. The problem is you can do it today but there is nothing in the bogus statement that would prevent them from changing their minds tomorrow.
The only way you and any people who use your distro or SELinux's distro would be safe is if they included a non exclusive license that insured royality free use and redistrubition rights. The statement clearly states they aren't licensing the Patents, so any redistrubition could be hazzardous to your finical health in the future.
It dosen't seem to violate the letter of the GPL, but it makes a mockary of the spirit of the License, and I hope The FSF closes this loophole ASAP
The Statement of Assurance explictly states that they aren't licensing the Patents to SELinux users. This places the statement in the same catagory as propriatary EULAS that contain a clause allowing them to change the license terms at any time.
It's just a PR move. There is nothing that would prevent SELinux from modifying or abbandoning this statement at any time. It provides no protections to users if SELinux is sold, or the Patent sold. They can even grant a third party a license that would enable the third party to collect the license fees that SELinux is pretending to abbandon.
The level of dishonesty shown by this statement has lowerd my leval of trust in SELinux, and made me more unlikely to use the software on a personal basis and reinforced my view that it would be a mistake to use SELinux in a commerical setting.
Power mad assholes was the subject before you embarked on generalized leftist ramblings.
"(Castro's regime being a lot more benign than many other countries supported by the US, such as Colombia, Indonesia, Turkey or Saudi Arabia, to name but a few)"
10% of the population has fled Castro's "benign" regime, NO US backed regime ever had refugee rates that high. No US back regimes ever had to build Berlin Walls, or seal the border with barbed wire, land mines, and machine guns to keep the "liberated" workers from fleeing the "workers paradise"
"Statists?" My, you're a real right-winger, aren't you?
No an objectivist, but when you are on the extreme left everybody looks like a right winger
"If you keep on with your half-assed attempts to ridicule my opinion and associate me with authoritarian doctrines"
YOU associated yourself with the authoritarian regimes by mindlessly parroting their propaganda. I merely pointed it out.
"then all I can say is that you're just another one in dozens of morons which have come and gone, repeating the same stupid arguments and ending up making fools out of themselves.I've had my share of pointless discussion, and this is definitely starting like one. Plus, your writing style sucks, which takes the fun out of a good political sparring session. Goodbye."
Typical, a round of namecalling before running away is an admission of defeat.
ROFLMAO A "Libertarian Leftist"? A Choamskyite calling someone an idiot? Someone befuddled enough to swallow CHUMPsky's addled drivel calling someone an idiot?
A "Libertarian Leftist",eh? Well it's a Well known Secret that the Worthless Riches amassed by Poverty Stricken Billionaires on dark days is used to purchase Jumbo Shrimp!!! This proves the Socalist Capitalists are waging a Peaceful War against the Idle Workers.
Since this likely went way over your head, consult Websters for "Irony" and "Oxymoron".
LOL, Actually most of the people who beleave this kind of "history" are just disapointed that the USA dared to stand up against Soviet Imperialism insteading of ceding victory to the "Worker's Paradise"
" The idea behind conflict management is to give the two sides a reason to achieve a reasonable compromise."
Like the "reasonable compromise" that the UK and france reached with Hitler at Munich in 1938?
"who's that robber you're talking about?"
Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, etc. What is a "reasonable compromise" with a gangster state that is out to destroy you? Let them take half your land? half of what's left a year or two later?
"I'm confused...are you talking about Dubya's entourage?"
I'm talking about statists who offer mealy mouthed excuses about why they need so much power, the majority of whom are currently members of the left.
"some of the big capitalists of the day, like Alan Dulles' brother or GWB's grandfather, did business with Nazi Germany"
Or Like Armand Hammer who did business with Stalinist Russia and purchased a Senator with stock in his oil company to help him. The one who earned the nickname of the Senator from the Soviet Union, Al Gore Sr.
There are more ways to protest an unjust law than just disobeying it openly. Often the best choice is making it clear that you are only performing an action because of the threat of armed force. That is one thing to remember about any law, at some point it is enforced by a man with a gun, and sometimes it's effective to make this plain either with words or actions.
In most cases it is better to use words to show disapproval of an unjust law. I resorted to actions in the case of the old Marijunia laws because it was possible to be charged with a felony for having a single joint, and the law was being unfairly enforced with upper class white kids usually being charged with a misdemeanor while lower class white kids, minorities or "troublemakers" were charged with a felony. In this case people's lives were being adversaly affected for a minor offense.
Sigh, Democratic governments are seldom consistant, and you are only focusing on some negative acts that support your preconcived viewpoint. In 1919 the US was not in favor of the vindictive aspects of the treaties that followed the First World War. In 1945 The US had ample reasons to feal vindictive against Germany and Japan, and instead of reparations poured vast ammounts of money into assisting the defeated nations back on their feet. In 1944 the US invaded it's colony of the Phillipines that had been occupied by Japan in order to fullfill it's promise of granting Independance and aiding the new nations with it's defense. In 1956 The US sided against it's primary allies during the Anglo-French Isreali invasion of Egypt.
As for "conflict management" that will only work if the two sides have reason to achive a reasonable compramise. giving half your money to an armed robber is not a reasonable compramise. It also ignore that there are some people who consider power an end, rather than a means to achive an end.
"War sucks. If we put half as much $ and effort into figuring out how to cure diseases and end poverty, as we do into these fucking Dr. Strangelove, penis-waving weapons systems..."
Yep being well fed, healthy and unable to defend yourself will make a power mad asshole with an Army think twice before he attacks you to take the food, medical care and whatever else he feels like.
An AC posted: "Perhaps you`re in the wrong country? Where are you - the states?"
Don't just ask where, ask when too. It was in the USA in 1976. The attention from protests like the one I took part in helped with the effort to decriminalize simple pocession of pot.
This case was more likely an attempt to evade copyright law than an act of civil disobedience. He was selling "pirated" games in addition to installing mod chips So I think it's more likely he after the profits involved in selling the games than trying to make a point about an unjust law.
An Example, Smoking Pot in your house is evading the law. Smoking Pot at the police station where they can see you is civil disobedience. In the first case it's apparant that you simply refuse to obey a law because you don't feel like it. Big deal, a bank robber does the same thing. The second case shows that you're disobeying the law as a protest against a law that you consider to be unjust.
Before anyone attempts to question if anyone would actually do the second act, I have been arrested for doing this as part of a protest against Marijunia laws.
There are things that can be done. Like pointing out to your employer that this fool law opens your network up to a legal search by any "hacker" if he claims he was looking for his copyrighted material. Pointing out the same thing to your school's network admins if you haven't graduated yet.
They might think this only concerns P2Ps, but the definition of a P2P is so broad it covers any damn server on the internet, and even if the definition was narrowed, any employee or student that installed a P2P on a box on your network would open your network to "inspection" to "insure" that the copyrighted material wasn't stored elsewhere on the network.
"Instead, we have H1-B's where they work for less, discourage Americans from entering tech jobs, save all the money they can, and move back home"
Now why am I getting a sense of Deja Vu? Could it be because I've heard the same thing about Mexicans?
Sorry I know enough about economics to know this, when you try to protect American jobs, you invite retalitation that stiffles trade and costs other American jobs, thus the stale old comparisons to the H1-B arguments. I also know enough about human nature that I knew the Sarcasim and Irony shown in the closing statements would go over a lot of people's heads.
Thanks to the internet, tech jobs are the most portable jobs in the world. The only reason H1-Bs exist in the programming field is managers haven't gotten past the mind set of having workers physicaly under their thumb. Once they get past that mental block they'll realize they don't even have to bother bringing them into the USA, they can simmply give them access to a server to check files out of CVS.
Tech is every bit as much a part of the global market as Cars and Textiles.
Then go hug trees, and whatever else you want to do, just remember one thing, your boys in Congress are the ones pushing this crap. The Eco Congress Critters are the ones who have their lips planted on Hollywood's ass, because that's where they get their money. This was introduced by a Liberal Democrat, not a member of the GOP.
Slashdot Mirror
You won't get a validation of your attempt to twist reality. You won't get a moral sanction for your immoral ideas.
Go ahead and call yourself Napoleon all you want, all you'll get is laughter from me, not a validation that you are Napoleon.
When you ARE a facist and someone calls you one, it's stating a fact, not admitting defeat. Renounce Facist Economics, and I'll quit refering to you as a Facist.
So were we susposed to invade Japan? Any idea of what that would have entailed? Based on what we saw at Iwo Jima and Okinawa we had estimates of over 1 Million US Injured and wounded in the proposed invasion. Estimates made by the Generals who were planning it. These weren't scare tatics to advocate the Bomb instead of an Invasion, the estimates were made by men who didn't know the bomb existed. Japanese dead would have numbered in the Millions.
Or we could have continue to tighten the Blockade and waited to starve the Japanese into surrender. Hundreds of thousands dead of a famine if they didn't hold out too long, Millions if the hard liners retained control.
Either of these options would have entailed ignoring that Japan had an Atomic Bomb Program, and we had no way of knowing if they were months or years away from being able to Nuke us.
"I dont know how many thousands of these nuclear bombs, and of unbelieveable power, what was the point?"
Surrivibility of a deterent after a first strike. In order to insure that if the vast majority of your nuclear weapons were destroyed in a surprise attack, you would have enough left to inflict revenge and still have some as a deterent against a third party. After the 1960's the Cold War was a three way struggle with both the USSR and The USA having to watch China also armed with Nukes.
If you have 200 Nukes and 95% are destroyed you only have 10 left for retribution and detering the third nation. If you have 2000 Nukes and 5% surrive a first strike you have 100 left.
The game was never Blow every thing up 20 times, it was insuring that if we suffered a second Pearl Harbor we would be able to blow enough stuff up one time to make it more trouble to attack us than it was worth.
During the Civil Rights era the idea grew that there was a "Right" to an education. There is NO right to a tax payer supported education. That is a privillege to be earned. Dumping the notion of a "Right" to a tax payer supported education will allow the schools to dump the worst trouble makers who don't intend to learn any thing, and won't cost a cent.
Money won't solve the problem of political groups pushing their agenda in the public school system. Scince has been watered down so the Fundementalists won't be offended. History has been watered down so a number of groups on the right and left won't be offended. Every thing else has been watered down so some dummy won't have his esteem hurt when he gets a failing grade.
More toys won't solve the gang problems many schools have. That would involve tossing gangsters out where they can't prey on other students.
Money won't return control of the classroom to a teacher who has to deal with "little angels" whose parents think they can do no wrong and are ready to sue at the drop of a hat, unless it's spent on lawyers instead of equipment.
Work on returning control of the class room to the teachers, on rewarding students who do bother learning, on penalizing students who don't learn, on getting politics out of the classroom, and after you solve those problems, then come back and talk to me about paying 5 times as much in School taxes as I'm paying now.
Whats the good of having a well educated population that is unable to defend itself? Some power mad asshole decides "Oh boy! Suckers ripe for the plucking!"
Why do you assume that throwing money at schools will magicly cause students to become more intrested in learning than in the next album by their favorite band, or if their favorite team will make it to the Super Bowl, or if they can get some good pot this weekend, or if they will get a piece of ass or......
The United States knew That Nazi Germany had an Atomic Bomb program, but didn't know how far along it was. It was also known that the first nation to develop the bomb would win the war, even if they were on the verge of defeat. Considering Hitler's goals, it would have been pretty fucking stupid to take a chance that Hitler would get the Bomb first.
The USA also knew that the USSR had had a Bomb program but didn't know how far along it's program was. Considering the expanionist goals of Stalin, it would have been pretty fucking stupid to take a chance that Stalin would get the Bomb first.
The USA suspected that the Japanese Empire had an Atomic Bomb Program, and it was confirmed on May 14th, 1945 when the German U-Boat U234 surrended after the European war ended. The Boat had 54 Kilos of Uranium Dioxide, Papers from the Nazi Bomb Program, The Two Japanese Officers who oversaw the shipment had labeled the Uranium Dioxide as U235 (Weapons grade). The USA also found out that there were two Japanese Subs that were loaded with Uranium Dioxide, which was bound for Japan. Considering the nature of the Imperial Japanese Government it would have been pretty fucking stupid to take a chance that they would get the bomb first.
In the 1940's it wasn't a question of IF an Atomic Bomb should be developed, it was a question of WHO was going to get the damn thing first, and you better be glad that Hesinberg blew the calculations on Critical Mass leading to a cutback in the Nazi Program or it could well have been Hitler getting the Bomb first. You better be glad that Japanese program was hampered by problems getting ahold of Uranium because they might have won the race, and you'd be hearing about Los Angles and San Francisco instead of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The Japanese Program did involve some Ironies. It's existance likely played a part in the decession to use the American Bombs. The Uranium Dioxide that was intended for the Japanese Program was delivered to Oakridge in May 1945. The Oakridge plant would have taken about a week to process 54 kilos of Uranium Dioxide into half a kilo of U235, so the U235 that was intended for the Japanese program was delivered to Hiroshima on August 6th, 1945. (along with additional U235 provided by the USA)
Funny thing is Allende's Doctor was the first one there after he died, and has repeatadly stated that Allende commited suicide.
http://www.warwick.ac.uk/~espbw/Chile2.htm
Oh Well, If the truth dosen't help advance Leftist politics, they are always ready to spread lies.
Which one of us wants to assume god like control over the economy? Which one of us is the power hungry fuck that wants to control others lives in the economic sphere?
The General usage of Libertarian concerns following the politics of the Libertarian party. You are the one ignoring general usage in your dishonest attempt to portray yourself as something you are not. Since your movement generally favors "truth in advertising" laws I suggest you apply them to your self, and stop the false advertising of economic facism as Libertarian.
" As an aside, Webster's definition of Libertarian:
1 : an advocate of the doctrine of free will
2 a : a person who upholds the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty especially of thought and action b capitalized : a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles "
Care to explain How your concept of an economy planed by elitist leftists deciding what's best for all fits in with "the doctrine of free will" that you intend to deny to owners of properity? How central planning fits in with "the principles of absolute and unrestricted liberty"?
The very Concept of a Libertarian who advocates state control of the economy is neurotic, and an attempt to evade reality. You are advocating a facist economic system, but have some delusion that applying a diferent label to it somehow magicly transforms you into something other than a facist.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck.
You are quacking Facism, and no matter how hard you try you to hide that reality from yourself, it won't turn a facist duck into a Libertarian swan.
" You just don't like you oppressor to be elected - you want to be a rich boy's bitch instead, that's fine with me"
Intresting that you use the word "rich" the same way a Klansman uses the word "Nigger" or a Nazi uses the word "Jew". You are just another bigot, someone who hates an entire group of people rather than judging it's members on their own merit. When I stood up against discrimination against Blacks I was labeled a "Nigger Lover", and now If I stand up for the rights of another minority I'm labeled a "rich boy's bitch" by someone with the same mentality as the Klansmen that call me a "Nigger Lover". Bigots calling me names dosen't prevent me from standing up for the rights of a minority that the Bigot wants to discriminate against. I'll stand up against Bigots elected to discrimanate against the wealthy, just like I stood up the Bigots elected to discriminate against Blacks.
"I'm a Libertarian Leftist, deal with it"
I've dealt with that several times by pointing out that you aren't fooling me by mislabeling yourself, that you aren't fooling others by mislabeling your self. You are only fooling yourself, and the way you keep insisting on applying the oxymoronic term to yourself reminds me of a comic movie where an inmate in a "funny farm" keeps insisting that he is Napoleon. All it does is perserve a self illusion that no one but "Napoleon" beleaves.
"you don't actually challenge any of my arguments."
Why do you think I have any intrest in elevating whatever absurd nonsense you feel like spouting into a subject worthy of debate? You made some claims, I'll leave it up to others to decide how worthy those claims are, but I will not help you legitimize them by raising them to the level of a subject worth debating.
In the 19th Century the word "Liberal" ment someone who beleaved in freedom from state controls. In the 20th Century Statists hijacked the word for political purposes and are ready to toss it away now that Liberal dosen't confuse people anymore, and are trying to pull the same scam on the word "Libertarian" which was coined for the ideas that Liberal represented 100 years ago.
The Economic system you described is the one that was used in Italy in from 1919 to 1945. Facism is the term the former Socalist Mussolini used for his economic system. You are a Facist, and a dishonest one that won't admit it Maybe you're fooling yourself but you aren't fooling anyone else.
BTW your admission that yo use words to mean anything you want them to was a mistake. Now it's apparent that nothing you say is trustworthy
Libertarian == personal AND economic freedom.
Planned Economy == Authoritarian economic system.
Double Think == The ability to hold two contradictory ideas at the same time. Orwell also stated that it ammounted to protective stupidity.
So which is it, are you too stupid to see the contradictions involved in being a Libertarian who beleaves in a planed economy, or a con artist trying to convince others that you are no different than thugs like Hitler and Stalin by tacking a Libertarian label on an Authoritarian economic system.
A Planed economy involes forcing people to obey YOUR will in the economic sphere. So Mr Planned Economy which economic model are you planning on enforcing at the point of a gun? The Stalinist model where you openly steal private properity, or the sneakier facist model where you allow meaningless ownership to be retained as long as your orders are followed? Which flavor of economic statist is hiding under the oxymoronic Libertarian Leftist label? Facist or Stalinist?
from the GPL Preamble
The FSF has failed to take the chilling effect of an unlicensed unenforced patent into consideration. As long as Red Hat and SELinux don't enforce patents on GPLed software they are in compliance with the GPL, but the danger that the patent could be enforced at some future date makes it risky to make a derritive work based on patented GPL software, or even to redistrubite it. The practice clearly goes against the spirit of the GPL.
The GPL needs to be modified so that there is a ban on including any patented code unless it also includes a royality free license with redistrubition rights. Simply refraining from enforcing patent rights (for now) does nothing to insure that users will retain the right to redistrubite and modify in the future.
Not entirely true. As long as SELinux refrains from enforcing the patent or collecting royalities you can make your own distro. The problem is you can do it today but there is nothing in the bogus statement that would prevent them from changing their minds tomorrow.
The only way you and any people who use your distro or SELinux's distro would be safe is if they included a non exclusive license that insured royality free use and redistrubition rights. The statement clearly states they aren't licensing the Patents, so any redistrubition could be hazzardous to your finical health in the future.
It dosen't seem to violate the letter of the GPL, but it makes a mockary of the spirit of the License, and I hope The FSF closes this loophole ASAP
It's just a PR move. There is nothing that would prevent SELinux from modifying or abbandoning this statement at any time. It provides no protections to users if SELinux is sold, or the Patent sold. They can even grant a third party a license that would enable the third party to collect the license fees that SELinux is pretending to abbandon.
The level of dishonesty shown by this statement has lowerd my leval of trust in SELinux, and made me more unlikely to use the software on a personal basis and reinforced my view that it would be a mistake to use SELinux in a commerical setting.
Power mad assholes was the subject before you embarked on generalized leftist ramblings.
"(Castro's regime being a lot more benign than many other countries supported by the US, such as Colombia, Indonesia, Turkey or Saudi Arabia, to name but a few)"
10% of the population has fled Castro's "benign" regime, NO US backed regime ever had refugee rates that high. No US back regimes ever had to build Berlin Walls, or seal the border with barbed wire, land mines, and machine guns to keep the "liberated" workers from fleeing the "workers paradise"
"Statists?" My, you're a real right-winger, aren't you?
No an objectivist, but when you are on the extreme left everybody looks like a right winger
"If you keep on with your half-assed attempts to ridicule my opinion and associate me with authoritarian doctrines"
YOU associated yourself with the authoritarian regimes by mindlessly parroting their propaganda. I merely pointed it out.
"then all I can say is that you're just another one in dozens of morons which have come and gone, repeating the same stupid arguments and ending up making fools out of themselves.I've had my share of pointless discussion, and this is definitely starting like one. Plus, your writing style sucks, which takes the fun out of a good political sparring session. Goodbye."
Typical, a round of namecalling before running away is an admission of defeat.
A "Libertarian Leftist"? A Choamskyite calling someone an idiot? Someone befuddled enough to swallow CHUMPsky's addled drivel calling someone an idiot?
A "Libertarian Leftist" ,eh?
Well it's a Well known Secret that the Worthless Riches amassed by Poverty Stricken Billionaires on dark days is used to purchase Jumbo Shrimp!!! This proves the Socalist Capitalists are waging a Peaceful War against the Idle Workers.
Since this likely went way over your head, consult Websters for "Irony" and "Oxymoron".
Actually most of the people who beleave this kind of "history" are just disapointed that the USA dared to stand up against Soviet Imperialism insteading of ceding victory to the "Worker's Paradise"
Like the "reasonable compromise" that the UK and france reached with Hitler at Munich in 1938?
"who's that robber you're talking about?"
Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Castro, etc. What is a "reasonable compromise" with a gangster state that is out to destroy you? Let them take half your land? half of what's left a year or two later?
"I'm confused...are you talking about Dubya's entourage?"
I'm talking about statists who offer mealy mouthed excuses about why they need so much power, the majority of whom are currently members of the left.
"some of the big capitalists of the day, like Alan Dulles' brother or GWB's grandfather, did business with Nazi Germany"
Or Like Armand Hammer who did business with Stalinist Russia and purchased a Senator with stock in his oil company to help him. The one who earned the nickname of the Senator from the Soviet Union, Al Gore Sr.
Your snide insinuation also says a lot about your convictions
In most cases it is better to use words to show disapproval of an unjust law. I resorted to actions in the case of the old Marijunia laws because it was possible to be charged with a felony for having a single joint, and the law was being unfairly enforced with upper class white kids usually being charged with a misdemeanor while lower class white kids, minorities or "troublemakers" were charged with a felony. In this case people's lives were being adversaly affected for a minor offense.
Democratic governments are seldom consistant, and you are only focusing on some negative acts that support your preconcived viewpoint. In 1919 the US was not in favor of the vindictive aspects of the treaties that followed the First World War. In 1945 The US had ample reasons to feal vindictive against Germany and Japan, and instead of reparations poured vast ammounts of money into assisting the defeated nations back on their feet. In 1944 the US invaded it's colony of the Phillipines that had been occupied by Japan in order to fullfill it's promise of granting Independance and aiding the new nations with it's defense. In 1956 The US sided against it's primary allies during the Anglo-French Isreali invasion of Egypt.
As for "conflict management" that will only work if the two sides have reason to achive a reasonable compramise. giving half your money to an armed robber is not a reasonable compramise. It also ignore that there are some people who consider power an end, rather than a means to achive an end.
Yep being well fed, healthy and unable to defend yourself will make a power mad asshole with an Army think twice before he attacks you to take the food, medical care and whatever else he feels like.
"Perhaps you`re in the wrong country? Where are you - the states?"
Don't just ask where, ask when too. It was in the USA in 1976. The attention from protests like the one I took part in helped with the effort to decriminalize simple pocession of pot.
An Example,
Smoking Pot in your house is evading the law.
Smoking Pot at the police station where they can see you is civil disobedience.
In the first case it's apparant that you simply refuse to obey a law because you don't feel like it. Big deal, a bank robber does the same thing. The second case shows that you're disobeying the law as a protest against a law that you consider to be unjust.
Before anyone attempts to question if anyone would actually do the second act, I have been arrested for doing this as part of a protest against Marijunia laws.
They might think this only concerns P2Ps, but the definition of a P2P is so broad it covers any damn server on the internet, and even if the definition was narrowed, any employee or student that installed a P2P on a box on your network would open your network to "inspection" to "insure" that the copyrighted material wasn't stored elsewhere on the network.
Now why am I getting a sense of Deja Vu? Could it be because I've heard the same thing about Mexicans?
Sorry I know enough about economics to know this, when you try to protect American jobs, you invite retalitation that stiffles trade and costs other American jobs, thus the stale old comparisons to the H1-B arguments. I also know enough about human nature that I knew the Sarcasim and Irony shown in the closing statements would go over a lot of people's heads.
Thanks to the internet, tech jobs are the most portable jobs in the world. The only reason H1-Bs exist in the programming field is managers haven't gotten past the mind set of having workers physicaly under their thumb. Once they get past that mental block they'll realize they don't even have to bother bringing them into the USA, they can simmply give them access to a server to check files out of CVS.
Tech is every bit as much a part of the global market as Cars and Textiles.